Triplet Based Embedding Distance and Similarity Learning for Text-independent Speaker Verification

Shugong Xu; Zhiyong Chen; Zongze Ren

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Triplet Based Embedding Distance and Similarity Learning for Text-independent Speaker Verification

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that adding triplet distance training and an embedding similarity measurement network to an x-vector speaker-verification system reduces both equal error rate and detection cost on the SRE16 test set.

desk verdict Reasonable joint-training recipe for x-vector embeddings, but the abstract's paired 9% EER/DCF improvement is not supported by any single configuration in Table II. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02283 v1 pith:3MKAOLAU submitted 2019-08-06 eess.AS cs.CLcs.LGcs.SD

Zongze Ren , Zhiyong Chen , Shugong Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AScs.CLcs.LGcs.SD

keywords speakerverificationtext-independentx-vectortripletlossembeddingsimilaritylearningmulti-taskSRE16deepneuralnetwork

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

This paper is trying to establish that a text-independent speaker-verification system can be improved by adding two training-stage objectives that mirror what verification actually does at test time. The first objective is a triplet loss that pulls an utterance embedding toward another embedding from the same speaker and pushes it away from a different speaker's embedding in Euclidean space. The second is a small network that classifies whether two concatenated embeddings come from the same speaker. Trained jointly with the standard softmax speaker-classification loss, the two extra losses are reported to lower both the equal error rate (EER) and the detection cost function (DCF) on the SRE16 evaluation set compared with the x-vector baseline.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the combined loss $L_{\text{total}} = \alpha L_{\text{x-vector}} + \beta L_{\text{triplet}} + \gamma L_{\text{similarity}}$ applied to the x-vector embedding layer the paper calls embedding A. The triplet term enforces Euclidean distance structure on embeddings, requiring the anchor-to-positive distance to stay below the anchor-to-negative distance by at least margin $a=0.8$; the similarity network, built from two bidirectional LSTM layers followed by two fully connected layers, takes the concatenation of two embeddings and outputs a same-speaker probability. These two terms are the mechanisms that translate test-time scoring into training constraints, and the weights $\beta$ and $\gamma$ control the trade-off between EER and DCF.

What would settle it

Train the baseline and the joint-training systems several times with different random seeds and evaluate on a development partition that was never used to choose $\beta$ and $\gamma$; if the EER and DCF differences between the baseline and the joint systems are no larger than the spread across training runs, the claimed 9% reduction is not established. A trial-level bootstrap of the SRE16 scores would also reveal whether the differences in the reported table exceed sampling uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the mismatch between training and evaluation in the x-vector system—softmax speaker classification during training versus embedding scoring at test time—can be narrowed by constraining the embedding layer directly. It trains with $L_{\text{total}} = \alpha L_{\text{x-vector}} + \beta L_{\text{triplet}} + \gamma L_{\text{similarity}}$, where the triplet term is $\|f(x^a)-f(x^p)\|_2^2 - \|f(x^a)-f(x^n)\|_2^2 + a$ with margin $a=0.8$, and the similarity term is two-class cross-entropy on concatenated embedding pairs. On the pooled SRE16 results, the reported numbers move from 8.65% EER and 0.679 DCF for the baseline to 7.86% EER for the joint configuration with $\beta=0.3$, $\gamma=0.1$ and to 0.617 DCF for the configuration with $\beta=0.1$, $\gamma=0.3$; the abstract summarises the gain as a 9% reduction in both metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The single load-bearing premise is that the reported error-rate and detection-cost differences reflect stable training improvements rather than chance: the loss weights were selected from the test-set results themselves, each configuration was trained once, and no confidence intervals or repeated runs are reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported gains are real, a speaker-verification system can be improved purely at training time, leaving the evaluation pipeline of embedding extraction and PLDA scoring unchanged.
Triplet distance and similarity training are complementary: the distance term mainly lowers EER and the similarity term mainly lowers DCF, so jointly trained systems can be tuned between the two metrics by adjusting $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
The constraints work best when applied to embedding A rather than embedding B, so architecture design can concentrate auxiliary losses on the embedding layer that verification scoring will use.
Score fusion of the triplet-trained and similarity-trained systems gives the best pooled numbers in the paper (7.27% EER, 0.618 DCF), indicating that the two models do not make exactly the same errors.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's headline '9% reduction' combines the best EER gain (System 6) and the best DCF gain (System 5) from different weight settings, so a single deployed configuration would likely show a smaller improvement on at least one metric.
If the result is stable, the same recipe should transfer to other end-to-end verification networks, because both extra losses are defined directly on embeddings rather than on the x-vector architecture.
A natural testable extension is to constrain both embedding layers or to make the similarity network symmetric, which could remove the need for separate EER-friendly and DCF-friendly weight settings.
The observed sensitivity of EER and DCF to $\beta$ and $\gamma$ suggests that these weights could be tuned at deployment time to match a specific application's false-alarm cost.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

First thing you should know: the abstract's headline claim—a 9% reduction in both EER and DCF on SRE16—is not supported by any single configuration in Table II. The paper is still worth a read for people working on speaker embeddings, but the selling line is cherry-picked.

What's actually new: they take the x-vector softmax baseline, add two auxiliary losses—a triplet distance loss on the embedding and a small BLSTM-based similarity network that sees the concatenation of two embeddings—and train them jointly. Triplet loss for speaker verification is not new (refs 8–12), and concatenation-based similarity networks come from NLP, but the joint recipe and the SRE16 evaluation are new. The results show each component helps its target metric: triplet distance cuts EER (System 4, 7.99 vs 8.65) and the similarity net cuts DCF (System 3, 0.633 vs 0.679). Fusion of the two (System 10) gives the best pooled numbers: EER 7.27, DCF 0.618. The figures and analysis are consistent with the expected mechanism: triplet tightens within-speaker spread, similarity net separates between-speaker scores.

Now the soft spots. The abstract's paired 9% is not in the table. System 5 (joint, beta=0.1, gamma=0.3) lowers DCF by 9.1% but EER by only 6.7%. System 6 (beta=0.3, gamma=0.1) lowers EER by 9.1% but DCF stays flat. Only the fusion system gets both metrics moving ~9%, and that is a Bosaris fusion of two separately trained models, not the multi-task training described in the abstract. Second, the beta/gamma weights appear to be chosen with SRE16 test metrics in view; the text even says 'we can adjust the EER and DCF by finetune the hyperparameters beta and gamma.' With one run per setting and no confidence intervals, the reported gains could be partly selection noise. Third, 'state-of-the-art' is unsupported: no comparison to other published SRE16 results. Fourth (minor), the BLSTM in the similarity network is not compared against a simpler MLP, and no code is released, so reproducibility is limited.

If I were refereeing this, I would not desk-reject it. The recipe is sensible, the baseline is standard, and the direction is useful. But I would ask for a corrected abstract, a held-out dev set for hyperparameter choice, repeated training runs or at least a statement about run-to-run variance, and a dropped or substantiated 'state-of-the-art' claim. As written, it's a decent workshop-style paper with an overstated headline.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two auxiliary training objectives for the x-vector text-independent speaker verification system: a triplet Euclidean-distance loss applied to the embedding layer and an embedding similarity measurement network that classifies whether two concatenated embeddings belong to the same speaker. These are jointly trained with the standard softmax classification loss, and the paper reports EER and DCF16 on the NIST SRE16 evaluation set, claiming a 9% reduction in both EER and DCF compared with the x-vector baseline. The experiments compare single-loss, joint-training, and score-fusion configurations, along with PLDA back-end scoring.

Significance. If the reported gains are reliable, adding triplet distance and similarity losses to x-vector training could be a simple and useful recipe for speaker verification. The paper uses a standard benchmark (SRE16), includes both EER and the official DCF16 metric, and provides ablations and fusion experiments. The contribution is incremental rather than conceptual, and the main novel claim is currently weakened by evaluation-validity problems: all numbers are single runs, the loss weights appear to be tuned on the evaluation set itself, and the abstract's paired 9% reduction is not directly supported by the joint-training rows in Table II.

major comments (4)

[Abstract; Section IV-C, Table II] The abstract's paired claim of a 9% reduction in both EER and DCF is not supported by any joint-training configuration in Table II. Relative to the System 2 pooled x-vector baseline (EER 8.65%, DCF16 0.679), System 5 (β=0.1, γ=0.3) reduces DCF16 by 9.1% to 0.617 but reduces EER by only 6.7% to 8.07%, while System 6 (β=0.3, γ=0.1) reduces EER by 9.1% to 7.86% but leaves DCF16 essentially unchanged at 0.681. System 10 reaches at least 9% improvement on both metrics, but it is a Bosaris score fusion of separately trained Systems 3 and 4, not the jointly trained three-loss network described in the abstract. Please report the EER and DCF reductions separately for the jointly trained configurations, or add a joint configuration that actually achieves the paired claim.
[Section IV-C and Eq. (5)] The hyperparameters β and γ appear to have been selected by inspecting the SRE16 evaluation-set metrics themselves. The text states that "we can adjust the EER and DCF by finetune the hyperparameters beta and gamma," and Table II presents two different (β, γ) settings without any indication of a separate development set or validation protocol. Because SRE16 is the same test set used to report the final numbers, tuning on it constitutes selection pressure and can inflate the apparent gains. Specify how β and γ were chosen, and either tune them on a held-out development set or use nested cross-validation, reporting results for a prespecified configuration.
[Section IV-C, Table II] All systems are evaluated with a single training run, and no confidence intervals, repeated-run statistics, or trial-level bootstraps are provided. The claimed relative improvements are on the order of 6–9% for EER and DCF, which is small enough that run-to-run variance in DNN training could change the conclusions. For key systems (at minimum Systems 2, 5, and 6), report means and standard deviations over multiple runs, or provide bootstrap confidence intervals over the evaluation trials.
[Eq. (1)] The multi-class cross-entropy loss is not written correctly. As printed, L_multi-class = -Σ_i [ exp(...)/Σ_j exp(...) ] is the negative sum of softmax probabilities without the logarithm and without the correct per-example normalization; its gradient is not the standard cross-entropy gradient. Add the missing -log(·) (or write -Σ_i log softmax(...)) and clarify whether the sum is over training examples M.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section I] The phrase "triplet cause the training stage" should be "triplet because the training stage" or similar; there are also several typos, notably "V eriﬁcation" in the title and "independment" in Section V.
[Section III-A, Eq. (3)] The symbol a is used both for the triplet margin and as an index of the anchor embedding; this makes Eq. (3) confusing and should be clarified.
[Section IV-C, System 7] The "l2-norm" variant is not defined in the paper. State whether it refers to l2-normalizing the embeddings before the losses or to embedding normalization after training, and specify where the normalization is applied.
[Section III-B] The description says that batch normalization and ReLU are applied after every hidden layer of the similarity network, but it is unclear whether batch normalization is applied to the recurrent BLSTM outputs or only to the feed-forward layers. Please clarify.
[Figure 2] The t-SNE panels have unlabeled axes and different coordinate ranges across panels; annotate both axes and use comparable axis ranges so the visual comparison of within-speaker and between-speaker variance is meaningful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper reports measured EER/DCF against the external SRE16 benchmark, and no claimed derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical systems paper. Its central claims are comparative measurements of EER and DCF16 on the NIST SRE16 evaluation set, against the x-vector and i-vector baselines, which are external systems. The proposed losses (triplet distance and embedding similarity network) are defined independently of the evaluation metric and are trained on separate corpora, not fitted to the SRE16 labels. No equation in the paper defines the reported EER/DCF reduction in terms of the loss weights or the network outputs; the table reports measured outcomes. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain. The only cited prior work is standard external literature (x-vector, i-vector, FaceNet, etc.). The choice of hyperparameters beta and gamma, and the observation that they can be adjusted to trade off EER and DCF, raises a possible evaluation-selection validity concern because the test set may have influenced the reported operating point, but this is not circularity in the definitional sense: the reported numbers are not equal to the fitted parameters by construction. Likewise, the abstract's paired 9% claim is not fully supported by Table II, but that is a correctness/verifiability issue, not a circular-derivation issue. Under the hard rules requiring a specific reduction of a derived result to its inputs, no circular step can be exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. It relies on hand-chosen hyperparameters (triplet margin, joint loss weights, network sizes) and standard engineering assumptions about the x-vector recipe, PLDA back-end, and transfer from training to evaluation domains.

free parameters (4)

triplet margin a = 0.8
Set empirically in Section III-A; the value is not derived from data or theory.
joint loss weight beta = 0.1 or 0.3 (two reported settings)
Chosen by hand and inspected on SRE16 test metrics in Section IV-C.
joint loss weight gamma = 0.3 or 0.1 (two reported settings)
Chosen by hand together with beta; no held-out development set is described.
similarity network hidden sizes = 1024 BLSTM nodes, 512 FC nodes
Architecture hyperparameters chosen by hand in Section III-B; no sensitivity analysis is provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Kaldi SRE16 recipe's data augmentation and training configuration produce a valid x-vector baseline.
The paper adopts the recipe as a baseline without re-deriving or validating it; the baseline's quality is not independently established in the paper.
domain assumption Euclidean distance on embedding A is a useful surrogate for the cosine/PLDA scoring used in evaluation.
Section III-A states cosine similarity could not converge and Euclidean distance is used instead; this choice is not derived from the evaluation metric.
domain assumption The similarity network's binary same/different speaker labels are a sufficient training signal for the verification task.
Section III-B concatenates two embeddings and trains with two-class cross-entropy; the paper does not show this proxy is calibrated with PLDA scores.
domain assumption Single-run evaluation on SRE16 without error bars is treated as exact measurement.
All conclusions in Table II and Section IV-C are read off single runs; no repeated training runs or confidence intervals are reported.
domain assumption The training corpora and augmentation resemble the SRE16 evaluation domains well enough for transfer.
Section IV-A lists training data but provides no domain-mismatch analysis or calibration on a development set.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Triplet Based Embedding Distance and Similarity Learning for Text-independent Speaker Verification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MKAOLAU

@misc{pith2026190802283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Triplet Based Embedding Distance and Similarity Learning for Text-independent Speaker Verification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MKAOLAU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02283}
}

read the original abstract

Speaker embeddings become growing popular in the text-independent speaker verification task. In this paper, we propose two improvements during the training stage. The improvements are both based on triplet cause the training stage and the evaluation stage of the baseline x-vector system focus on different aims. Firstly, we introduce triplet loss for optimizing the Euclidean distances between embeddings while minimizing the multi-class cross entropy loss. Secondly, we design an embedding similarity measurement network for controlling the similarity between the two selected embeddings. We further jointly train the two new methods with the original network and achieve state-of-the-art. The multi-task training synergies are shown with a 9% reduction equal error rate (EER) and detected cost function (DCF) on the 2016 NIST Speaker Recognition Evaluation (SRE) Test Set.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02283 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** visualization of different systems, plotted by the t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** DET curve for the baseline and proposed systems when t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: PLDA scores distribution of negative trials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Front- end factor analysis for speaker veriﬁcation,

N. Dehak, P . J. Kenny, R. Dehak, P . Dumouchel, and P . Ouell et, “Front- end factor analysis for speaker veriﬁcation,” IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 788–798, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

Deep neural networks for small footprint text- dependent speaker veriﬁcation,

E. V ariani, X. Lei, E. McDermott, I. L. Moreno, and J. Gonz alez- Dominguez, “Deep neural networks for small footprint text- dependent speaker veriﬁcation,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acous- tics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2014, pp. 4052– 4056

work page 2014
[3]

X- vectors: Robust dnn embeddings for speaker recognition,

D. Snyder, D. Garcia-Romero, G. Sell, D. Povey, and S. Khu danpur, “X- vectors: Robust dnn embeddings for speaker recognition,” i n 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal P rocessing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2018, pp. 5329–5333

work page 2018
[4]

Self-atten tive speaker embeddings for text-independent speaker veriﬁcat ion,

Y . Zhu, T. Ko, D. Snyder, B. Mak, and D. Povey, “Self-atten tive speaker embeddings for text-independent speaker veriﬁcat ion,” in Proc. Interspeech, vol. 2018, 2018, pp. 3573–3577

work page 2018
[5]

Attentive statistics pooling for deep speaker embedding,

K. Okabe, T. Koshinaka, and K. Shinoda, “Attentive statistics pooling for deep speaker embedding,” in Proc. Interspeech 2018 , 2018, pp. 2252–2256. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-993

doi:10.21437/interspeech.2018-993 2018
[6]

USTCSpeech System for VOiCES from a Distance Challenge 2019

L. Y ou, B. Gu, and W. Guo, “Ustcspeech system for voices fr om a distance challenge 2019,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.12428 , 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[7]

Facenet: A uniﬁed embed- ding for face recognition and clustering,

F. Schroff, D. Kalenichenko, and J. Philbin, “Facenet: A uniﬁed embed- ding for face recognition and clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2015, pp. 815– 823

2015
[8]

End-to-end text-independent speaker veri- ﬁcation with triplet loss on short utterances

C. Zhang and K. Koishida, “End-to-end text-independent speaker veri- ﬁcation with triplet loss on short utterances.” in Interspeech, 2017, pp. 1487–1491

2017

Show all 19 references

[9]

Tristounet: triplet loss for speaker turn em bedding,

H. Bredin, “Tristounet: triplet loss for speaker turn em bedding,” in 2017 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech an d signal processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 5430–5434

2017
[10]

Text-independ ent speaker veriﬁcation based on triplet convolutional neural network embeddings,

C. Zhang, K. Koishida, and J. H. Hansen, “Text-independ ent speaker veriﬁcation based on triplet convolutional neural network embeddings,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Proces sing (TASLP), vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1633–1644, 2018

2018
[11]

Deep speaker: an end-to-end neural speaker embe dding system,

C. Li, X. Ma, B. Jiang, X. Li, X. Zhang, X. Liu, Y . Cao, A. Ka nnan, and Z. Zhu, “Deep speaker: an end-to-end neural speaker embe dding system,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02304 , 2017

2017 arXiv
[12]

Triplet loss based cosine similarity metric learning for t ext-independent speaker recognition,

S. Novoselov, V . Shchemelinin, A. Shulipa, A. Kozlov, a nd I. Kremnev, “Triplet loss based cosine similarity metric learning for t ext-independent speaker recognition,” Proc. Interspeech 2018 , pp. 2242–2246, 2018

2018
[13]

Generalized end-to-end loss for speaker veriﬁcation,

L. Wan, Q. Wang, A. Papir, and I. L. Moreno, “Generalized end-to-end loss for speaker veriﬁcation,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 4879–4883

2018
[14]

Learning discriminative features for speaker identiﬁcation and veriﬁcation,

S. Y adav and A. Rai, “Learning discriminative features for speaker identiﬁcation and veriﬁcation,” in Proc. In- terspeech 2018 , 2018, pp. 2237–2241. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1015

2018 doi
[15]

Improving language understanding by generative pre-training

A. Radford, K. Narasimhan, T. Salimans, and I. Sutskeve r, “Improving language understanding by generative pre-training.”
[16]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understan ding,

J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understan ding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

2018 arXiv
[17]

Deep neural network embeddings for text-independent speaker ve riﬁcation

D. Snyder, D. Garcia-Romero, D. Povey, and S. Khudanpur , “Deep neural network embeddings for text-independent speaker ve riﬁcation.” in Interspeech, 2017, pp. 999–1003

2017
[18]

The kaldi speech recognition toolkit,

D. Povey, A. Ghoshal, G. Boulianne, L. Burget, O. Glembe k, N. Goel, M. Hannemann, P . Motlicek, Y . Qian, P . Schwarz et al. , “The kaldi speech recognition toolkit,” IEEE Signal Processing Socie ty, Tech. Rep., 2011

2011
[19]

The bosaris toolkit: Th eory, algorithms and code for surviving the new dcf,

N. Br¨ ummer and E. De Villiers, “The bosaris toolkit: Th eory, algorithms and code for surviving the new dcf,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.2865 , 2013. This figure "score_plot.png" is available in "png" format from: http://arxiv.org/ps/1908.02283v1

2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Front- end factor analysis for speaker veriﬁcation,

N. Dehak, P . J. Kenny, R. Dehak, P . Dumouchel, and P . Ouell et, “Front- end factor analysis for speaker veriﬁcation,” IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 788–798, 2010

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Deep neural networks for small footprint text- dependent speaker veriﬁcation,

E. V ariani, X. Lei, E. McDermott, I. L. Moreno, and J. Gonz alez- Dominguez, “Deep neural networks for small footprint text- dependent speaker veriﬁcation,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acous- tics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2014, pp. 4052– 4056

work page 2014

[3] [3]

X- vectors: Robust dnn embeddings for speaker recognition,

D. Snyder, D. Garcia-Romero, G. Sell, D. Povey, and S. Khu danpur, “X- vectors: Robust dnn embeddings for speaker recognition,” i n 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal P rocessing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2018, pp. 5329–5333

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Self-atten tive speaker embeddings for text-independent speaker veriﬁcat ion,

Y . Zhu, T. Ko, D. Snyder, B. Mak, and D. Povey, “Self-atten tive speaker embeddings for text-independent speaker veriﬁcat ion,” in Proc. Interspeech, vol. 2018, 2018, pp. 3573–3577

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Attentive statistics pooling for deep speaker embedding,

K. Okabe, T. Koshinaka, and K. Shinoda, “Attentive statistics pooling for deep speaker embedding,” in Proc. Interspeech 2018 , 2018, pp. 2252–2256. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-993

doi:10.21437/interspeech.2018-993 2018

[6] [6]

USTCSpeech System for VOiCES from a Distance Challenge 2019

L. Y ou, B. Gu, and W. Guo, “Ustcspeech system for voices fr om a distance challenge 2019,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.12428 , 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[7] [7]

Facenet: A uniﬁed embed- ding for face recognition and clustering,

F. Schroff, D. Kalenichenko, and J. Philbin, “Facenet: A uniﬁed embed- ding for face recognition and clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2015, pp. 815– 823

2015

[8] [8]

End-to-end text-independent speaker veri- ﬁcation with triplet loss on short utterances

C. Zhang and K. Koishida, “End-to-end text-independent speaker veri- ﬁcation with triplet loss on short utterances.” in Interspeech, 2017, pp. 1487–1491

2017