REVIEW 1 cited by
Scoring of Large-Margin Embeddings for Speaker Verification: Cosine or PLDA?
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
The emergence of large-margin softmax cross-entropy losses in training deep speaker embedding neural networks has triggered a gradual shift from parametric back-ends to a simpler cosine similarity measure for speaker verification. Popular parametric back-ends include the probabilistic linear discriminant analysis (PLDA) and its variants. This paper investigates the properties of margin-based cross-entropy losses leading to such a shift and aims to find scoring back-ends best suited for speaker verification. In addition, we revisit the pre-processing techniques which have been widely used in the past and assess their effectiveness on large-margin embeddings. Experiments on the state-of-the-art ECAPA-TDNN networks trained with various large-margin softmax cross-entropy losses show a substantial increment in intra-speaker compactness making the conventional PLDA superfluous. In this regard, we found that constraining the within-speaker covariance matrix could improve the performance of the PLDA. It is demonstrated through a series of experiments on the VoxCeleb-1 and SITW core-core test sets with 40.8% equal error rate (EER) reduction and 35.1% minimum detection cost (minDCF) reduction. It also outperforms cosine scoring consistently with reductions in EER and minDCF by 10.9% and 4.9%, respectively.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Voiceprint Fallacy: Why Voices Are Not Unique Biometric Imprints
Because voices vary with mood, health, age, speaking style, and recording conditions, the voiceprint metaphor is scientifically misleading and voice evidence should be expressed as calibrated degrees of support.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.