MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390376799 · doi:10.18280/ts.400608

Optimizing Acoustic Feature Selection for Estimating Speaker Traits: A Novel Threshold-Based Approach

2023· article· en· W4390376799 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Umniah Hameed Jaid, Alia Karim Abdul Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceSpeech recognitionFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speech signals offer a rich array of information about a speaker, encompassing physical attributes and emotional or health states, with significant applications in forensics, security, surveillance, marketing, and customer service.This work aims to identify key acoustic features for estimating an unidentified speaker's height, age, and gender.A novel Forward Feature Selection with Threshold-Based Backward Elimination (FFS-TBE) algorithm is proposed, designed to optimize feature selection across various spectral, temporal, and prosodic dimensions of speech, including Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs), pitch, and formants.Tested against the TIMIT dataset, the FFS-TBE algorithm surpassed traditional feature selection methods like backward and forward sequential feature selection (BSFS/FSFS) and mutual information (MI) statistical methods.It achieved state-of-the-art results, with mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 4.87 cm for male and 4.5 cm for female speakers in height estimation, and MAEs of 4.82 years and 4.91 years for male and female speakers, respectively, in age estimation.Gender prediction accuracy reached 99%.Crucially, the study found that gender-specific feature selection enhances performance, highlighting the distinct acoustic differences between male and female speakers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207