X-CrossNet: A complex spectral mapping approach to target speaker extraction with cross attention speaker embedding fusion

Bo Qin; Chang Sun

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

X-CrossNet: A complex spectral mapping approach to target speaker extraction with cross attention speaker embedding fusion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read X-CrossNet claims state-of-the-art target speaker extraction: 19.9 dB SI-SDRi on WSJ0-2mix and 14.6 dB on WHAMR!, with only 5.1M parameters.

desk verdict Incremental but sensible extension of CrossNet to target speaker extraction; the SOTA claim rests on 0.1-0.3 dB margins with no error bars or ablation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13811 v2 pith:JD3RUK4V submitted 2024-11-21 cs.SD cs.MMeess.AS

Chang Sun , Bo Qin This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SDcs.MMeess.AS

keywords targetspeakerextractionspeechseparationcocktailpartyproblemcomplexspectralmappingcross-attentionfusionCrossNetnoiserobustnessreverberant

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

X-CrossNet is a target speaker extraction model: given a mixed recording and a short enrollment clip of the wanted speaker, it reconstructs that speaker's voice while suppressing other voices and background noise. The paper claims that using CrossNet, a separation backbone built for noisy and reverberant conditions, and injecting the enrollment speaker embedding into each block's global attention through a cross-attention fusion module, makes the model state of the art. On the clean two-speaker WSJ0-2mix benchmark it reports 19.9 dB SI-SDR improvement and 20.5 dB SDR improvement with 5.1 million parameters, and on the noisy-reverberant WHAMR! benchmark it reports 14.6 dB and 14.1 dB. If true, this would make robust speaker extraction practical for voice interfaces in difficult acoustic settings at a smaller model size than existing systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the fusion global multi-head self-attention (Fusion GMHSA) module inside each CrossNet block. The target speaker's learned embedding is used to produce query features that are cross-attended with the mixture representation; the result is concatenated and projected by a 1x1 convolution, then fed into the block's self-attention, so the enrollment voice steers separation at every layer. This sits inside CrossNet's time-frequency pipeline of global attention, cross-band and narrow-band convolutions, and the network operates as a complex spectral mapper, outputting the real and imaginary parts of the target spectrogram.

What would settle it

Run the same training setup multiple times with different random seeds and compare confidence intervals: if the WSJ0-2mix SI-SDRi gap between X-CrossNet and X-TF-GridNet includes zero, the state-of-the-art claim is not supported. Replacing the cross-attention fusion with a simple concatenation of speaker and mixture features and observing no drop in SI-SDRi would show the fusion module is not the source of the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a time-frequency speech separation network optimized for hard acoustic conditions can be repurposed for target speaker extraction by replacing the global self-attention module in every block with a fusion version that cross-attends the speaker embedding into the mixture features. The resulting X-CrossNet predicts the real and imaginary STFT components of the target speech and is trained with magnitude, SI-SDR, and speaker classification losses. The paper reports that this design beats the compared TSE systems on both WSJ0-2mix and WHAMR!, while using the smallest parameter count of the tested models.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the reported improvements of 0.2–0.3 dB over the closest comparison system are real model behavior and not random training variation, since the paper gives no error bars, repeated runs, or significance tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Target extraction on WSJ0-2mix can reach SI-SDRi near 20 dB with a 5.1M-parameter model, undercutting heavier TSE systems while staying accurate.
Robustness to noise and reverberation does not require a separate enhancement stage; the CrossNet backbone plus fused speaker embedding carries the conditioning through the time-frequency layers.
Because the speaker encoder is trained jointly with a speaker-classification loss, the enrollment embedding is shaped by the extraction task itself rather than frozen from a speaker-recognition model.
The method is applicable only when a reference utterance of the target speaker is available; it is not a blind source separation system.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct ablation the paper does not run—replacing the cross-attention fusion with simple concatenation or multiplication inside the same backbone—would tell whether the reported gains come from the fusion mechanism or from the stronger CrossNet backbone alone.
Since the margins over the closest baseline are about 0.2–0.3 dB with no repeated-seed statistics, a natural follow-up is to report confidence intervals; the architectural advantage should not be treated as settled until that variance is known.
The same fusion design could likely be ported to multi-channel or streaming variants of CrossNet, since the backbone family already supports multi-channel input; the paper evaluates only single-channel extraction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Candid take: this is a reasonable incremental extension of CrossNet to target speaker extraction, with a cross-attention fusion inside each GMHSA block. The paper is plainly written, uses standard public datasets and metrics, and the main architectural choice is sensible. Credit where due: at 5.1M parameters it beats X-TF-GridNet's 7.8M while matching or slightly exceeding its scores on WSJ0-2mix and WHAMR!. That parameter efficiency is a real, if modest, result.

The soft spot is the evidence for the SOTA claim. Over the strongest baseline, X-TF-GridNet, the margins are 0.2 dB SI-SDRi and 0.1 dB SDRi on WSJ0-2mix; on WHAMR! SI-SDRi ties and SDRi differs by 0.3 dB. In this literature those differences are within normal run-to-run variance, and the paper gives no error bars, repeated runs, or significance tests. The stress-test note also points out that Table II does not say whether the X-TF-GridNet numbers were reproduced under the same protocol or quoted from the original paper; that alone can explain 0.3 dB. More importantly, there is no ablation that isolates the proposed cross-attention fusion from the CrossNet backbone. Without an ablation, the improvement cannot be credited to the new mechanism rather than to training details or the backbone itself.

To be clear, none of this is fatal. The architecture is plausible, the scores are in the right ballpark, and the missing items are standard add-on experiments. But as it stands, the central claim of 'outperforms other methods' is not statistically established. The paper would be much stronger with a few random seeds, an ablation on the fusion module, and a footnote about the reproduction protocol for baselines.

Who's it for: someone working on TSE architectures who wants a parameter-efficient variant of CrossNet with a speaker embedding fusion. For a general speech separation audience it's not a must-read. I'd send it to peer review because the work is technically sound and the defects are fixable, but I would not accept it as is.

Recommendation: engage with it, ask for the missing experiments, and let the authors strengthen the evidence.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes X-CrossNet, a time-frequency-domain target speaker extraction (TSE) model built on the CrossNet separation backbone. The main architectural novelty is a cross-attention fusion of the speaker embedding inside each global multi-head self-attention (GMHSA) module of the CrossNet blocks. The system uses a REL-block-based speaker encoder with a speaker-classification auxiliary loss, and is trained with a combination of magnitude, SI-SDR, and cross-entropy losses. Experiments on WSJ0-2mix and WHAMR! report SI-SDRi and SDRi improvements over several prior TSE systems, with 5.1M parameters, and the paper claims state-of-the-art performance. The central claim is the empirical superiority of X-CrossNet over X-TF-GridNet by small margins.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the paper offers a parameter-efficient extension of a strong separation backbone to TSE and a plausible mechanism for injecting speaker information into global attention. The use of standard public datasets and metrics, the low parameter count (5.1M), and the clear modular architecture are strengths. However, the significance of the claimed superiority is currently uncertain: the margins over the closest baseline are within typical run-to-run variation, and no statistical validation or ablation is provided. The architectural idea is worth pursuing, but the evidence presented does not yet establish a state-of-the-art claim.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-C, Tables I and II] The claimed state-of-the-art margins over X-TF-GridNet are 0.2 dB SI-SDRi and 0.1 dB SDRi on WSJ0-2mix, and 0.3 dB SDRi on WHAMR!, with SI-SDRi exactly tied at 14.6 dB. The paper provides no error bars, no repeated runs, and no significance tests. In speech separation, such margins are commonly within run-to-run variance, so the statement that X-CrossNet outperforms all other methods is not supported by the evidence as presented. Please add multiple training runs with standard deviations or confidence intervals, and report a significance test if appropriate.
[Section III-C and Section IV-C] No ablation isolates the proposed cross-attention speaker embedding fusion. The paper attributes the improvement to the fusion structure in Figure 2(d), but Tables I and II compare only the complete X-CrossNet model against external baselines. Without comparing to CrossNet with a simpler speaker conditioning mechanism (for example, concatenation or adaptive fusion), and without ablating the speaker encoder or loss terms, the contribution of the proposed mechanism is unverified. Please add ablations that isolate the fusion module and other components.
[Section IV-C, Tables I and II] It is unclear whether the baseline numbers, especially those for X-TF-GridNet, were reproduced under identical data splits, reference-speech lengths, STFT settings, and evaluation scripts, or simply quoted from previous papers. A protocol mismatch of 0.3 dB can explain the reported differences. Please state the source of each baseline result and, ideally, re-evaluate at least X-TF-GridNet with the same evaluation pipeline to ensure a fair comparison.

minor comments (5)

[Section III-E, Eq. (7)] The text says 'linear product' where 'inner product' is intended, and the clean target signal s1 is not explicitly defined before use in the SI-SDR formula.
[Section II] The phrase 'image parts' should be 'imaginary parts' in the description of Eq. (4).
[References] References [13] and [16] are duplicates (both are the Conformer paper by Gulati et al.); please cite it once and refer to the same entry throughout.
[Figures 1 and 2] The figures contain repeated subfigure panels and are visually dense; simplifying and clearly labeling the fusion module would improve readability.
[Title page] The affiliation city is misspelled as 'Beijng'; it should be 'Beijing'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: X-CrossNet is an empirical architecture comparison on public benchmarks, with no fitted parameter renamed as prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical and self-contained against external benchmarks. The model is defined by standard building blocks (STFT speech encoder, speaker encoder, CrossNet backbone, decoder) and trained with a conventional composite loss consisting of magnitude loss, SI-SDR loss, and cross-entropy loss. The reported SI-SDRi and SDRi values are measured on held-out test utterances of WSJ0-2mix and WHAMR!, using metrics that are not defined in terms of the model's own outputs in a circular way. No parameter is fitted to the test set and then reported as a prediction; the backbone CrossNet and speaker encoder are prior published components cited from [15] and [6], and are not invoked through a uniqueness theorem or a self-citation chain. The absence of ablations and error bars, and the small margins over X-TF-GridNet, are legitimate concerns about robustness and statistical significance, but they are correctness and evidence-quality issues rather than circularity: the comparison does not reduce by construction to an input of the paper. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be quoted, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard architectural and training hyperparameters set by hand, on the assumed validity of STFT-based processing, and on the robustness of the CrossNet backbone. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The paper's contribution is architectural and empirical, not theoretical, so the axiom ledger is relatively small.

free parameters (4)

hidden channels H = 96
Architectural hyperparameter set by hand following prior work (TF-GridNet); affects model capacity and performance.
number of CrossNet blocks B = 12
Depth of the backbone, chosen by hand; deeper networks often improve separation but increase compute.
attention heads in GMHSA = 4
Number of attention heads in each global multi-head self-attention module, set by hand.
loss weights for LMag, LSI-SDR, LCE = 1.0 each (equal weighting)
The combined loss uses equal weights for magnitude, SI-SDR, and cross-entropy terms; no tuning or justification is given.

assumptions (4)

standard math STFT and iSTFT are invertible and provide a valid time-frequency representation for speech separation.
Used throughout Section II and III: the model operates on complex STFT coefficients and reconstructs the signal with iSTFT.
domain assumption CrossNet [15] is an effective and robust separation backbone for noisy and reverberant speech.
The paper builds directly on CrossNet's design (GMHSA, cross-band, narrow-band modules) and assumes its robustness transfers to TSE.
domain assumption The WSJ0-2mix-extr simulation follows the standard WSJ0-2mix protocol, making scores comparable to published baselines.
The dataset details in Section IV.A state a simulation following [18], but no verification that the test split matches exactly the baselines' setup.
domain assumption The speaker encoder from X-TF-GridNet [6] provides suitable speaker embeddings for guiding extraction.
The speaker encoder is directly adopted from [6] and assumed to work with CrossNet backbone without re-evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-CrossNet: A complex spectral mapping approach to target speaker extraction with cross attention speaker embedding fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JD3RUK4V

@misc{pith2026241113811,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-CrossNet: A complex spectral mapping approach to target speaker extraction with cross attention speaker embedding fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JD3RUK4V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13811}
}

read the original abstract

Target speaker extraction (TSE) is a technique for isolating a target speaker's voice from mixed speech using auxiliary features associated with the target speaker. It is another attempt at addressing the cocktail party problem and is generally considered to have more practical application prospects than traditional speech separation methods. Although academic research in this area has achieved high performance and evaluation scores on public datasets, most models exhibit significantly reduced performance in real-world noisy or reverberant conditions. To address this limitation, we propose a novel TSE model, X-CrossNet, which leverages CrossNet as its backbone. CrossNet is a speech separation network specifically optimized for challenging noisy and reverberant environments, achieving state-of-the-art performance in tasks such as speaker separation under these conditions. Additionally, to enhance the network's ability to capture and utilize auxiliary features of the target speaker, we integrate a Cross-Attention mechanism into the global multi-head self-attention (GMHSA) module within each CrossNet block. This facilitates more effective integration of target speaker features with mixed speech features. Experimental results show that our method performs superior separation on the WSJ0-2mix and WHAMR! datasets, demonstrating strong robustness and stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13811 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** X-CrossNet building blocks. (a) Speaker Encoder module. (b) U-Net-based REL block. (c) CrossNet block. (d) Fusion global multi-head self-attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

Deep clustering: Discriminative embeddings for segmentation and separation,

J. R. Hershey, Z. Chen, J. Le Roux, and S. Watanabe, “Deep clustering: Discriminative embeddings for segmentation and separation,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal process- ing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2016, pp. 31–35

work page 2016
[2]

X-TaSNet: Robust and Accurate Time-Domain Speaker Extraction Network

Z. Zhang, B. He, and Z. Zhang, “X-tasnet: Robust and accurate time- domain speaker extraction network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12766 , 2020

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[3]

Conv-tasnet: Surpassing ideal time– frequency magnitude masking for speech separation,

Y . Luo and N. Mesgarani, “Conv-tasnet: Surpassing ideal time– frequency magnitude masking for speech separation,” IEEE/ACM trans- actions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1256–1266, 2019

2019
[4]

X-sepformer: End-to-end speaker extraction network with explicit optimization on speaker confusion,

K. Liu, Z. Du, X. Wan, and H. Zhou, “X-sepformer: End-to-end speaker extraction network with explicit optimization on speaker confusion,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023
[5]

Attention is all you need in speech separation,

C. Subakan, M. Ravanelli, S. Cornell, M. Bronzi, and J. Zhong, “Attention is all you need in speech separation,” in ICASSP 2021- 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2021, pp. 21–25

2021
[6]

X-tf-gridnet: A time–frequency domain target speaker extraction network with adaptive speaker embedding fusion,

F. Hao, X. Li, and C. Zheng, “X-tf-gridnet: A time–frequency domain target speaker extraction network with adaptive speaker embedding fusion,” Information Fusion, vol. 112, p. 102550, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Tf-gridnet: Making time-frequency domain models great again for monaural speaker separation,

Z.-Q. Wang, S. Cornell, S. Choi, Y . Lee, B.-Y . Kim, and S. Watanabe, “Tf-gridnet: Making time-frequency domain models great again for monaural speaker separation,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023
[8]

Single channel target speaker extraction and recognition with speaker beam,

M. Delcroix, K. Zmolikova, K. Kinoshita, A. Ogawa, and T. Nakatani, “Single channel target speaker extraction and recognition with speaker beam,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 5554–5558

work page 2018

Show all 25 references

[9]

V oicefilter: Targeted voice separation by speaker-conditioned spectrogram masking,

Q. Wang, H. Muckenhirn, K. Wilson, P. Sridhar, Z. Wu, J. Hershey, R. A. Saurous, R. J. Weiss, Y . Jia, and I. L. Moreno, “V oicefilter: Targeted voice separation by speaker-conditioned spectrogram masking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04826, 2018

arXiv
[10]

New insights on target speaker extraction,

M. Elminshawi, W. Mack, S. R. Chetupalli, S. Chakrabarty, and E. A. Habets, “New insights on target speaker extraction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00733, 2022

2022 arXiv
[11]

Wavesplit: End-to-end speech separation by speaker clustering,

N. Zeghidour and D. Grangier, “Wavesplit: End-to-end speech separation by speaker clustering,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 29, pp. 2840–2849, 2021

2021
[12]

Attention-based scaling adaptation for target speech extraction,

J. Han, W. Rao, Y . Long, and J. Liang, “Attention-based scaling adaptation for target speech extraction,” in 2021 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 658–662

2021
[14]

Target speaker extraction by directly exploiting contextual information in the time-frequency domain,

X. Yang, C. Bao, J. Zhou, and X. Chen, “Target speaker extraction by directly exploiting contextual information in the time-frequency domain,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 10 476–10 480

2024
[15]

Crossnet: Leveraging global, cross- band, narrow-band, and positional encoding for single-and multi-channel speaker separation,

V . A. Kalkhorani and D. Wang, “Crossnet: Leveraging global, cross- band, narrow-band, and positional encoding for single-and multi-channel speaker separation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03411 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition,

A. Gulati, J. Qin, C.-C. Chiu, N. Parmar, Y . Zhang, J. Yu, W. Han, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y . Wu et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08100 , 2020

2005 arXiv
[17]

Sdr–half-baked or well done?

J. Le Roux, S. Wisdom, H. Erdogan, and J. R. Hershey, “Sdr–half-baked or well done?” in ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 626–630

2019
[18]

Spex+: A complete time domain speaker extraction network,

M. Ge, C. Xu, L. Wang, E. S. Chng, J. Dang, and H. Li, “Spex+: A complete time domain speaker extraction network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04686, 2020

2005 arXiv
[19]

Whamr!: Noisy and reverberant single-channel speech separation,

M. Maciejewski, G. Wichern, E. McQuinn, and J. Le Roux, “Whamr!: Noisy and reverberant single-channel speech separation,” in ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 696–700

2020
[20]

Wham!: Extending speech separation to noisy environments,

G. Wichern, J. Antognini, M. Flynn, L. R. Zhu, E. McQuinn, D. Crow, E. Manilow, and J. L. Roux, “Wham!: Extending speech separation to noisy environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01160 , 2019

1907 arXiv
[21]

Time-domain speaker extraction network,

C. Xu, W. Rao, E. S. Chng, and H. Li, “Time-domain speaker extraction network,” in 2019 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understand- ing Workshop (ASRU). IEEE, 2019, pp. 327–334

2019
[22]

Spex: Multi-scale time domain speaker extraction network,

C. Xu, W. Rao, E. S. Chng, and H. Li, “Spex: Multi-scale time domain speaker extraction network,” IEEE/ACM transactions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 28, pp. 1370–1384, 2020

2020
[23]

Sef-net: Speaker embedding free target speaker extraction network,

B. Zeng, H. Suo, Y . Wan, and M. Li, “Sef-net: Speaker embedding free target speaker extraction network,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2023, pp. 3452–3456

2023
[24]

Spatialnet: Extensively learning spatial information for multichannel joint speech separation, denoising and dereverberation,

C. Quan and X. Li, “Spatialnet: Extensively learning spatial information for multichannel joint speech separation, denoising and dereverberation,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 32, pp. 1310–1323, 2024

2024
[25]

Decoupled weight decay regularization,

I. Loshchilov, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

2017 arXiv
[26]

Performance measurement in blind audio source separation,

E. Vincent, R. Gribonval, and C. F ´evotte, “Performance measurement in blind audio source separation,” IEEE transactions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1462–1469, 2006

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Deep clustering: Discriminative embeddings for segmentation and separation,

J. R. Hershey, Z. Chen, J. Le Roux, and S. Watanabe, “Deep clustering: Discriminative embeddings for segmentation and separation,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal process- ing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2016, pp. 31–35

work page 2016

[2] [2]

X-TaSNet: Robust and Accurate Time-Domain Speaker Extraction Network

Z. Zhang, B. He, and Z. Zhang, “X-tasnet: Robust and accurate time- domain speaker extraction network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12766 , 2020

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[3] [3]

Conv-tasnet: Surpassing ideal time– frequency magnitude masking for speech separation,

Y . Luo and N. Mesgarani, “Conv-tasnet: Surpassing ideal time– frequency magnitude masking for speech separation,” IEEE/ACM trans- actions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1256–1266, 2019

2019

[4] [4]

X-sepformer: End-to-end speaker extraction network with explicit optimization on speaker confusion,

K. Liu, Z. Du, X. Wan, and H. Zhou, “X-sepformer: End-to-end speaker extraction network with explicit optimization on speaker confusion,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Attention is all you need in speech separation,

C. Subakan, M. Ravanelli, S. Cornell, M. Bronzi, and J. Zhong, “Attention is all you need in speech separation,” in ICASSP 2021- 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2021, pp. 21–25

2021

[6] [6]

X-tf-gridnet: A time–frequency domain target speaker extraction network with adaptive speaker embedding fusion,

F. Hao, X. Li, and C. Zheng, “X-tf-gridnet: A time–frequency domain target speaker extraction network with adaptive speaker embedding fusion,” Information Fusion, vol. 112, p. 102550, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Tf-gridnet: Making time-frequency domain models great again for monaural speaker separation,

Z.-Q. Wang, S. Cornell, S. Choi, Y . Lee, B.-Y . Kim, and S. Watanabe, “Tf-gridnet: Making time-frequency domain models great again for monaural speaker separation,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Single channel target speaker extraction and recognition with speaker beam,

M. Delcroix, K. Zmolikova, K. Kinoshita, A. Ogawa, and T. Nakatani, “Single channel target speaker extraction and recognition with speaker beam,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 5554–5558

work page 2018