MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Novel Hybrid Neural Embedding Extractor for Text Independent Speaker Verification

2025· article· en· W4413458003 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Jahangir Alam, Md Shahidul Alam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExtractorSpeaker verificationSpeech recognitionEmbeddingSpeaker recognitionArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingPattern recognition (psychology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speaker embedding extraction is crucial for neural automatic speaker verification systems. In this work, we propose a novel hybrid neural embedding framework that integrates frequency- and channel-wise Selective Kernel Attention (SKA) into a 2D-CNN-based feature extraction module. This integration improves the aggregation of frequency-channel information, enhancing the extraction of discriminative speaker embeddings. The feature extraction module is connected to a frame-level network, combining a Time-Delay Neural Network (TDNN)-Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) hybrid with a fully TDNN network in a cascaded structure. To capture speaker information at the utterance level, we use Multi-Level Attentive Statistics Pooling (MLASP), which incorporates local statistics and leverages the complementarity of different networks. MLASP also helps integrate previously overlooked features, enhancing the robustness of the learned embeddings. The entire framework is trained with the additive angular margin softmax (AAMSoftmax) objective, creating an embedding space where embeddings of the same speaker are close together, and those of different speakers are well separated. Experimental results on the VoxCeleb and CNCeleb corpora demonstrate that our approach outperforms both baseline and state-of-the-art speaker verification systems trained on the same datasets.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207