REVIEW 1 cited by
On the Generation and Removal of Speaker Adversarial Perturbation for Voice-Privacy Protection
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Neural networks are commonly known to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks mounted through subtle perturbation on the input data. Recent development in voice-privacy protection has shown the positive use cases of the same technique to conceal speaker's voice attribute with additive perturbation signal generated by an adversarial network. This paper examines the reversibility property where an entity generating the adversarial perturbations is authorized to remove them and restore original speech (e.g., the speaker him/herself). A similar technique could also be used by an investigator to deanonymize a voice-protected speech to restore criminals' identities in security and forensic analysis. In this setting, the perturbation generative module is assumed to be known in the removal process. To this end, a joint training of perturbation generation and removal modules is proposed. Experimental results on the LibriSpeech dataset demonstrated that the subtle perturbations added to the original speech can be predicted from the anonymized speech while achieving the goal of privacy protection. By removing these perturbations from the anonymized sample, the original speech can be restored. Audio samples can be found in \url{https://voiceprivacy.github.io/Perturbation-Generation-Removal/}.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Multi-Level Privacy-Preserving Dementia Detection from Speech via Targeted Adversarial Obfuscation and Representation Learning
A two-stage speech-obfuscation framework claims to suppress speaker identity while preserving dementia detection, but the reported privacy numbers are internally inconsistent and a single-stage baseline outperforms it.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.