MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400527613 · doi:10.1109/fg59268.2024.10581998

Dynamic Cross Attention for Audio-Visual Person Verification

2024· article· en· W4400527613 on OpenAlexaff
R. Gnana Praveen, Jahangir Alam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAudio visualSpeech recognitionHuman–computer interactionMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although person or identity verification has been predominantly explored using individual modalities such as face and voice, audio-visual fusion has recently shown immense potential to outperform unimodal approaches. Audio and visual modalities are often expected to pose strong complementary relationships, which plays a crucial role for effective audio-visual fusion. However, they may not always strongly complement each other, they may also exhibit weak complementary relationships, resulting in poor audio-visual feature representations. In this paper, we propose a Dynamic Cross Attention (DCA) model that can dynamically select the cross-attended or unattended features on the fly based on the strong or weak complementary relationships, respectively, across audio and visual modalities. In particular, a conditional gating layer is designed to evaluate the contribution of the cross-attention mechanism and choose cross-attended features only when they exhibit strong complementary relationships, otherwise unattended features. Extensive experiments are conducted on the Voxceleb1 dataset to demonstrate the robustness of the proposed model. Results indicate that the proposed model consistently improves the performance on multiple variants of cross-attention while outperforming the state-of-the-art methods. Code is available at https://github.com/praveena2j/DCAforPersonVerification

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207