Benchmark Dataset Dynamics, Bias and Privacy Challenges in Voice Biometrics Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speaker recognition is a widely used voice-based biometric technology with applications in various industries, including banking, education, recruitment, immigration, law enforcement, healthcare, and well-being. However, while dataset evaluations and audits have improved data practices in face recognition and other computer vision tasks, the data practices in speaker recognition have gone largely unquestioned. Our research aims to address this gap by exploring how dataset usage has evolved over time and what implications this has on bias, fairness and privacy in speaker recognition systems. Previous studies have demonstrated the presence of historical, representation, and measurement biases in popular speaker recognition benchmarks. In this paper, we present a longitudinal study of speaker recognition datasets used for training and evaluation from 2012 to 2021. We survey close to 700 papers to investigate community adoption of datasets and changes in usage over a crucial time period where speaker recognition approaches transitioned to the widespread adoption of deep neural networks. Our study identifies the most commonly used datasets in the field, examines their usage patterns, and assesses their attributes that affect bias, fairness, and other ethical concerns. Our findings suggest areas for further research on the ethics and fairness of speaker recognition technology.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".