Vo-Ve: An Explainable Voice-Vector for Speaker Identity Evaluation

Jaejun Lee; Kyogu Lee

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Vo-Ve: An Explainable Voice-Vector for Speaker Identity Evaluation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new voice-vector embedding scores speaker identity while telling you which attributes of the voice are doing the work.

desk verdict Clever idea with real potential for TTS evaluation, but the ABX evidence is self-referential and the 'competitive' claim is too generous; the interpretability story needs a stronger test before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19446 v1 pith:GXKJVG24 submitted 2025-06-24 cs.SD eess.AS

Jaejun Lee , Kyogu Lee This is my paper

classification cs.SDeess.AS

keywords speakerembeddingvoiceattributemulti-labelclassificationsimilarityevaluationinterpretabilityconversionspeechsynthesisexplainablevoice-vector

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 introduces Vo-Ve, a speaker embedding whose 44 dimensions are probabilities of explicit voice attributes such as calm, bright, and raspy. It claims that this attribute-based vector evaluates speaker similarity on par with standard speaker embeddings, while being interpretable: each dimension says why two voices are alike or different. Two crowd-sourced ABX tests back the interpretability claim, one comparing different speakers and one comparing ground-truth with converted speech. If the claim holds, speaker identity evaluation in voice conversion and speech synthesis can report attribute-level explanations instead of a single opaque similarity score.

What carries the argument

Vo-Ve is the 44-dimensional sigmoid-activated output of a multi-label classification network, where each dimension is the degree to which an explicit voice attribute is present. The network uses an ECAPA-TDNN backbone with a speaker-verification head; the total loss is binary cross-entropy on attribute labels plus cross-entropy on speaker identity. The soft ground-truth labels come from converting three annotators' intensity ratings (very, normal, slightly, none) into weighted averages using hand-chosen weights in Algorithm 1. This joint training is what lets the attribute dimensions stay faithful to human voice judgments while still carrying speaker-discriminative information.

What would settle it

In a preregistered ABX test with speech pairs sampled uniformly across all 44 attribute dimensions and the full range of Vo-Ve differences, if participant agreement with Vo-Ve's predicted ordering is not significantly above chance, the interpretability claim is refuted; separately, if Vo-Ve's top-k speaker accuracy on a larger held-out dataset falls clearly below all conventional embeddings, the competitive-similarity claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a 44-dimensional sigmoid vector of voice-attribute probabilities, trained on LibriTTS-P with a soft multi-label ground truth plus an auxiliary speaker classification loss, preserves enough speaker-discriminative information to perform competitively with conventional embeddings (ECAPA-TDNN, WavLM-TDNN, Resemblyzer). On the unseen VCTK corpus, Vo-Ve shows the highest within-speaker homogeneity, and its top-1 to top-10 speaker retrieval accuracy sits between the strongest and weakest baselines. In ABX tests, listeners chose the sample Vo-Ve flagged as having more of a given attribute well above chance when the predicted difference exceeded 0.3, and at chance when the predicted difference was below 0.1, in both inter-speaker and intra-speaker comparisons. The paper argues this shows Vo-Ve's absolute values are meaningful, not just rank-ordered.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline depends on the hand-picked numeric weights used to turn three annotators' coarse intensity ratings into continuous ground-truth attribute scores, and if those weights misrepresent the true attribute intensities, every Vo-Ve value and the validation results built on them inherit the distortion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Voice conversion systems can be diagnosed at the attribute level, showing which voice qualities are preserved or lost in the conversion.
Speaker similarity results can be reported with explanations, so an absolute similarity score is no longer a black-box number.
Vo-Ve can serve as a differentiable attribute-based training or fine-tuning objective for speech synthesis models.
Speakers can be retrieved or clustered by attribute descriptions such as young, soft, and clear, using the same vector.

Reading between the lines

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

Vo-Ve's attribute dimensions likely have systematic acoustic correlates (the paper observes pitch lowering raising 'sexy' and lowering 'bright'), which could support a testable pitch-controlled generation scheme.
Because Vo-Ve is low-dimensional and semantic, interpolation between attribute vectors may provide a natural control space for TTS speaker manipulation, an application not explored in the paper.
Concatenating Vo-Ve with a conventional embedding could recover the inter-speaker diversity gap the authors observe while retaining explainability.
The hand-chosen annotator weights could be validated by re-running the ABX experiments under alternative weight sets; agreement patterns that are stable across weights would strengthen the ground-truth construction.

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

Vo-Ve is a genuinely useful idea: replace opaque speaker embeddings with a 44-dimensional vector of voice-attribute class probabilities, so similarity scores can be traced to specific attributes like 'calm' or 'raspy'. That framing is new relative to the prompt-based TTS literature and the standard ECAPA speaker verification line, and it is a practical contribution for TTS/VC evaluation. The paper also does some things right: the model architecture is sensible, the VCTK similarity evaluation is a proper unseen-dataset test, and the authors openly acknowledge the diversity metric weakness rather than hiding it. The code is provided.

The soft spots are real, though. The ABX interpretability tests in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 select pairs using Vo-Ve's own predictions (difference >0.3 or <0.1) and score correctness by whether humans pick the sample with the higher v_i. That is not a closed loop—humans are external and could disagree—but it is self-referential: the test only measures ordering on pairs the model already treats as easy, and it cannot validate absolute magnitudes. The near-chance results on similar pairs are exactly what you would expect from that selection rule, not evidence that the absolute values are meaningful. Worse, the paper asserts 'significantly better than random chance' for 53.95% and 56.28% accuracies without reporting significance tests or confidence intervals. For a 100-pair test, those numbers are only marginally above chance; a paired test could easily be non-significant. I largely agree with the stress-test note, though I'd soften 'completely circular' to 'internally anchored.'

The label-construction weights in Algorithm 1 are also arbitrary (very=1.5, normal=1.25, slightly=0.5, none=0) and never sensitivity-analyzed. If those weights distort the ground truth, the entire vector inherits the distortion. The similarity evaluation also leans on a model retrained on the full LibriTTS-P without a held-out split, which is acceptable for VCTK but should be stated more clearly.

On the upside, the top-1 accuracy of 63.29% is poor next to ECAPA's 97.56%, and the 'competitive' claim is too generous. The authors do acknowledge the dimensional gap, and the top-k result does beat WavLM, but a reader should not take 'competitive' at face value.

Who is this for? Researchers in TTS/VC evaluation who want a diagnostically oriented similarity metric. It deserves a serious referee, but the ABX evidence needs a redesign—random or human-selected pairs, independent attribute ratings, and proper statistics—before the interpretability claim is credible.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Vo-Ve, a 44-dimensional speaker embedding whose dimensions are predicted probabilities of explicit voice attributes (e.g., 'calm', 'bright', 'raspy'), obtained as the sigmoid output of a multi-label ECAPA-TDNN classifier trained on LibriTTS-P with a joint speaker-classification loss. The authors evaluate Vo-Ve on VCTK against conventional speaker embeddings (ECAPA-TDNN, WavLM-TDNN, Resemblyzer) using homogeneity, diversity, and top-k accuracy, and they report two ABX subjective tests (inter-speaker and intra-speaker) intended to show that Vo-Ve's attribute dimensions are interpretable and that its absolute values are meaningful. The central claims are that Vo-Ve evaluates speaker similarity competitively with conventional embeddings while providing interpretable, attribute-level explanations.

Significance. If the claims were well supported, Vo-Ve would be a useful contribution: an explainable speaker representation could help diagnose which voice attributes are preserved in voice conversion and other speech synthesis systems, and the paper includes a public code release and uses a recently introduced large-scale voice-attribute corpus. However, the current evidence falls short of the claims. The quantitative comparison in Table 3 does not support 'competitive' performance against the strongest baseline, and the ABX interpretability experiments are circular because both pair selection and the correctness criterion are derived from Vo-Ve's own output. The hand-chosen label weights in Algorithm 1 add an untested upstream assumption. These are load-bearing issues for both headline contributions.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Section 4.1, Table 3] The abstract's claim that Vo-Ve 'evaluates speaker similarity competitively with conventional techniques' is contradicted by Table 3: Vo-Ve's top-1 accuracy is 63.29% versus ECAPA-TDNN's 97.56%, and Vo-Ve's diversity score (0.9263) is the worst (highest) among all four models. The text's statement that Vo-Ve 'performed comparably to other models' holds only with respect to WavLM-TDNN (53.00%) and not against ECAPA-TDNN or Resemblyzer (78.10%). Since competitive similarity evaluation is one of the two central contributions, either the claim must be reframed as an explicit trade-off (interpretability versus accuracy) or additional evidence must be provided that Vo-Ve's similarity values are useful despite substantially lower discriminative performance.
[Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2] The ABX subjective tests are circular as validation of interpretability. In both the inter-speaker and intra-speaker tests, the dissimilar pair set is constructed by selecting pairs with |v_i(a)-v_i(b)| > 0.3 in Vo-Ve's own output, and the correctness label is 'the sample with the higher v_i'. The similar pair set is likewise selected by Vo-Ve's own threshold of <0.1. An arbitrary but self-consistent scoring function could pass the dissimilar-pair test if human raters can be nudged toward the model's choice, and the near-chance performance on similar pairs is the expected consequence of feeding the model pairs it regards as nearly identical. The test never compares v to independently obtained human attribute ratings. No confidence intervals or significance tests are reported despite the text asserting 'significantly better than random chance'. The interpretability claim therefore needs to be re-examined with an external ground truth, such as held-out human ratings on the same attribute scale or ABX pairs selected independently of Vo-Ve's outputs.
[Section 3.1, Algorithm 1] The conversion of the three annotators' ordinal intensity labels into continuous ground-truth labels y_i uses hand-chosen weights (very=1.5, normal=1.25, slightly=0.5, none=0) together with a separate hard-degree rule that is not expressed in Algorithm 1. The weights are asserted to be 'carefully chosen', but no sensitivity analysis, validation against alternative weightings, or comparison with the original annotator distribution is provided. Because y_i is the training target for the multi-label classifier and underpins the classification performance reported in Table 2, any distortion in this label-construction step propagates into every subsequent claim about Vo-Ve's values and the downstream interpretability experiments.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors that should be corrected: 'contirbute' in Section 2.1, 'It containing' in Section 3.1, and 'Thess results' in Section 4.1.
[Table 2] Table 2 has duplicated cell values (e.g., the F1 score 0.8176 appears three times in the τ=0.3 row) and the row for τ=0.1 is visually merged with the header; this should be cleaned up.
[Section 4.1] The statement that all pairwise differences were statistically significant via paired t-test (p<0.01) lacks details about what constitutes the paired samples, whether one- or two-tailed tests were used, and how multiple comparisons were handled; reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals would be more informative.
[Section 3.2] The sigmoid output σ(f(x)) is described as a 'probability degree', but sigmoid outputs are not calibrated probabilities; without calibration evidence, the term 'score' or 'soft label' would be more accurate.
[Section 4.2.2] The intra-speaker test selects the HYFace sample with the best WER before the ABX test; this selection could bias the evaluation toward easier cases, so the robustness of the result should be assessed by also testing other generated samples or by reporting the variability across all available samples.
[Section 5] The observed pitch-related trends for the 'sexy' and 'bright' attributes are presented as intriguing patterns without formal analysis; this should be either developed into a quantitative study or explicitly labeled as anecdotal future work.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Explainability evidence is partially circular: ABX accuracy is defined relative to Vo-Ve's own outputs, and pairs are selected by Vo-Ve's confidence thresholds; independent speaker-embedding and classification results keep the paper from being fully circular.

self definitional [Section 4.2.1, Inter-speaker interpretability, ABX accuracy definition]
"The accuracy indicates the proportion of participants who selected the speech sample that Vo-Ve predicted to have a higher v_i value for the given label compared to the other sample."

In this ABX test, the 'correct' answer is defined as whichever sample has the larger Vo-Ve value v_i for the tested attribute. Therefore the reported accuracy measures only how often humans agree with Vo-Ve's own ordering; it cannot independently verify that v_i corresponds to the true voice attribute. A model with arbitrary but internally consistent scores can pass this test as long as the selected pairs are easy enough for humans to be led to the same choice, so the metric is self-validating by construction.
self definitional [Section 4.2.1, Inter-speaker similar pair set and its interpretation]
"Results from the Inter-speaker similar pair set showed insignificant accuracy, indicating that when Vo-Ve predicted only a minimal difference in a given voice attribute, participants similarly found it difficult to distinguish between the speech samples."

Because the similar-pair set was constructed by selecting only pairs with |v_i(a)-v_i(b)| < 0.1, chance-level discrimination by humans is a direct consequence of the selection threshold. The paper then cites this chance-level result as evidence that Vo-Ve's absolute magnitudes are meaningful, but the experiment never compares v_i values against independent human ratings of attribute degree; it only confirms that pairs Vo-Ve regards as nearly identical are hard to tell apart, which is tautological.

full rationale

Vo-Ve is a multi-label classifier trained on LibriTTS-P human annotations; the classification performance on held-out speakers and the VCTK speaker-similarity comparison are standard supervised evaluations and are not circular. The circularity is confined to the interpretability validation in Section 4.2. There, the ABX 'correct answer' is defined as the sample with the larger Vo-Ve value v_i, and the dissimilar/similar pair sets are selected using Vo-Ve's own thresholds (>0.3 and <0.1). High accuracy on the dissimilar set therefore only demonstrates that humans can be made to agree with Vo-Ve's ordering on pairs Vo-Ve already regards as very different, while chance performance on the similar set is a selection artifact. These two design choices make the central explainability claim partially self-validating. However, the human listeners are external, and the ordering could in principle have failed, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The classification F1 against human-derived labels and the VCTK embedding comparisons provide independent supporting content, so the overall score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on manually constructed attribute labels and thresholds. The free parameters are the intensity weights, the ABX difference thresholds, and the classification threshold. The axioms are domain assumptions about the reliability of annotations and the transferability of the embedding. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Intensity weights (very, normal, slightly, none) = 1.5, 1.25, 0.5, 0
Hand-chosen in Algorithm 1 to convert annotator intensity levels into continuous ground-truth labels; the hard-degree rule (two very or normal+normal+slightly) is also manually defined.
ABX selection thresholds = 0.3 (noticeable difference), 0.1 (minimal difference)
Hand-chosen thresholds in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 for constructing dissimilar and similar pair sets.
Classification threshold tau = 0.3 for best F1
Threshold used to convert soft outputs to hard labels for Table 2; the choice is data-dependent.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption LibriTTS-P attribute annotations (three annotators, 44 classes) are reliable and sufficient to represent speaker identity.
Vo-Ve is trained on these labels; if they are inconsistent or incomplete, the embedding inherits the errors. Invoked in Section 3.1.
domain assumption Cosine similarity between Vo-Ve vectors is a valid measure of speaker similarity.
Section 4.1 compares Vo-Ve to conventional embeddings using cosine similarity, assuming that distances in attribute-probability space correspond to perceptual distance.
domain assumption MTurk listeners can reliably judge which of two samples better matches a given attribute label.
The ABX tests in Sections 4.2.1-4.2.2 rely on this; no filtering beyond a fake-sample check is described.
domain assumption ECAPA-TDNN is an appropriate architecture for attribute classification.
Used as backbone in Section 3.2 without justification for this specific task.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vo-Ve: An Explainable Voice-Vector for Speaker Identity Evaluation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GXKJVG24

@misc{pith2026250619446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vo-Ve: An Explainable Voice-Vector for Speaker Identity Evaluation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GXKJVG24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19446}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose Vo-Ve, a novel voice-vector embedding that captures speaker identity. Unlike conventional speaker embeddings, Vo-Ve is explainable, as it contains the probabilities of explicit voice attribute classes. Through extensive analysis, we demonstrate that Vo-Ve not only evaluates speaker similarity competitively with conventional techniques but also provides an interpretable explanation in terms of voice attributes. We strongly believe that Vo-Ve can enhance evaluation schemes across various speech tasks due to its high-level explainability.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Capturing speaker identity is crucial for tasks like speaker recognition [1]

Introduction Recent advancements in human speech technologies, such as recognition and synthesis, focus not only on content but also on effectively capturing and imprinting the intended speaker iden- tity. Capturing speaker identity is crucial for tasks like speaker recognition [1]. Additionally, multi-speaker settings have now become standard in speech s...

work page 2025
[2]

Related works 2.1. Conventional evaluation of speaker identity Evaluating speaker identity in speech is crucial, especially in multi-speaker synthesis frameworks, where preserving the voice of the target speaker is essential. V oice conversion (VC), one of the key synthesis criteria, assesses its effectiveness by comparing the cosine similarity of speaker...

arXiv 2025
[3]

It is the sigmoid-activated output of a multi-label classification network trained on a voice attribute dataset

Vo-Ve: An Explainable Voice-Vector V o-Ve is a vector representation (v) where each dimension cor- responds to a specific voice attribute class, and its value repre- sents the degree (0∼1) to which that attribute is present. It is the sigmoid-activated output of a multi-label classification network trained on a voice attribute dataset. 3.1. Voice attribut...

work page
[4]

At least two annotators labeled thei-th attribute as “very”, or

work page
[5]

In all other cases,y i is assigned a soft degree value

All three annotators provided a label combination with at least the intensive with{normal,normal,slightly}. In all other cases,y i is assigned a soft degree value. Table 2:Multi-label classification performance Threshold τ Precision score Recall score F1 score 0.1 0.9996±0.00390.9996±0.00390.9996±0.0039 0.6274±0.0597 0.7692±0.0470 0.2 0.9861±0.0214 0.6833...

work page arXiv
[6]

medium.en

Leveraging Vo-Ve: From Evaluation to Practical Applications In this section, we evaluate the capability of V o-Ve on un- seen datasets. First, we assess speaker embedding similarity, a conventional method for evaluating speaker identity, by com- paring V o-Ve with conventional speaker embeddings [5, 6, 7] and demonstrating its comparable performance. More...

work page
[7]

To fairly evaluate its potential, we designed a network architecture similar to that of the comparison system

Discussion Through extensive analysis, we demonstrated that V o-Ve pro- vides strong interpretability, a key characteristic lacking in con- ventional speaker embedding techniques. To fairly evaluate its potential, we designed a network architecture similar to that of the comparison system. However, for practical deployment across a wide range of real-worl...

work page
[8]

Conclusion In this work, we introduced V o-Ve, an explainable voice vector designed for evaluating speaker identity. Unlike conventional speaker embeddings, V o-Ve provides explicit voice attribute- based interpretability while maintaining competitive perfor- mance in speaker similarity evaluations. Through extensive ex- periments, we demonstrated that V ...

work page

Show all 38 references

[9]

RS- 2022-II220641, 50%], [No

Acknowledgements This work was partly supported by Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) [No. RS- 2022-II220641, 50%], [No. RS-2022-II220320, 2022-0-00320, 40%], [No.RS-2021-II211343, Artifi...

2022
[10]

The vox celeb speaker recognition challenge: A retrospective,

J. Huh, J. S. Chung, A. Nagrani, A. Brown, J.-w. Jung, D. Garcia- Romero, and A. Zisserman, “The vox celeb speaker recognition challenge: A retrospective,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 2024

2024
[11]

Yourtts: Towards zero-shot multi-speaker tts and zero-shot voice conversion for everyone,

E. Casanova, J. Weber, C. D. Shulby, A. C. Junior, E. G ¨olge, and M. A. Ponti, “Yourtts: Towards zero-shot multi-speaker tts and zero-shot voice conversion for everyone,” inInternational Con- ference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 2709–2720

2022
[12]

Neural codec language mod- els are zero-shot text to speech synthesizers,

C. Wang, S. Chen, Y . Wu, Z. Zhang, L. Zhou, S. Liu, Z. Chen, Y . Liu, H. Wang, J. Liet al., “Neural codec language mod- els are zero-shot text to speech synthesizers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.02111, 2023

2023 arXiv
[13]

V oicebox: Text-guided multilingual universal speech generation at scale,

M. Le, A. Vyas, B. Shi, B. Karrer, L. Sari, R. Moritz, M. Williamson, V . Manohar, Y . Adi, J. Mahadeokaret al., “V oicebox: Text-guided multilingual universal speech generation at scale,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 36, 2024

2024
[14]

Ecapa- tdnn: Emphasized channel attention, propagation and ag- gregation in tdnn based speaker verification,

B. Desplanques, J. Thienpondt, and K. Demuynck, “Ecapa- tdnn: Emphasized channel attention, propagation and ag- gregation in tdnn based speaker verification,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07143, 2020

2005 arXiv
[15]

Wavlm: Large-scale self- supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing,

S. Chen, C. Wang, Z. Chen, Y . Wu, S. Liu, Z. Chen, J. Li, N. Kanda, T. Yoshioka, X. Xiaoet al., “Wavlm: Large-scale self- supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1505–1518, 2022

2022
[16]

Resemblyzer,

“Resemblyzer,” https://github.com/resemble-ai/Resemblyzer
[17]

Rw-voiceshield: Raw waveform-based adversarial attack on one-shot voice conversion,

C.-Y . Yang, S. G. Upadhyay, Y .-T. Wu, B.-H. Su, and C.-C. Lee, “Rw-voiceshield: Raw waveform-based adversarial attack on one-shot voice conversion,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 2730–2734

2024
[18]

Disentangling prosody and timbre embeddings via voice conversion,

N. Gengembre, O. Le Blouch, and C. Gendrot, “Disentangling prosody and timbre embeddings via voice conversion,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 2765–2769

2024
[19]

Prvae-vc2: Non-parallel voice conversion by distillation of speech represen- tations,

K. Tanaka, H. Kameoka, T. Kaneko, and Y . Kondo, “Prvae-vc2: Non-parallel voice conversion by distillation of speech represen- tations,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 4363–4367

2024
[20]

Neural codec language mod- els for disentangled and textless voice conversion,

A. Baade, P. Peng, and D. Harwath, “Neural codec language mod- els for disentangled and textless voice conversion,” inProc. Inter- speech 2024, 2024, pp. 182–186

2024
[21]

Improvement speaker similarity for zero-shot any-to-any voice conversion of whispered and regular speech,

A. Gusev and A. Avdeeva, “Improvement speaker similarity for zero-shot any-to-any voice conversion of whispered and regular speech,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 2735–2739

2024
[22]

Noise-robust voice conversion by conditional denoising training using latent variables of record- ing quality and environment,

T. Igarashi, Y . Saito, K. Seki, S. Takamichi, R. Yamamoto, K. Tachibana, and H. Saruwatari, “Noise-robust voice conversion by conditional denoising training using latent variables of record- ing quality and environment,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07280, 2024

2024 arXiv
[23]

Utilizing adaptive global response normal- ization and cluster-based pseudo labels for zero-shot voice con- version,

J. S. Um and H. Kim, “Utilizing adaptive global response normal- ization and cluster-based pseudo labels for zero-shot voice con- version,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 2740–2744

2024
[24]

Hear your face: Face-based voice conversion with f0 estimation,

J. Lee, Y . Oh, I. Hwang, and K. Lee, “Hear your face: Face-based voice conversion with f0 estimation,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 4378–4382

2024
[25]

Xe-speech: Joint training framework of non-autoregressive cross-lingual emotional text-to-speech and voice conversion,

H. Guo, C. Liu, C. T. Ishi, and H. Ishiguro, “Xe-speech: Joint training framework of non-autoregressive cross-lingual emotional text-to-speech and voice conversion,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 4983–4987

2024
[26]

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,” in2018 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2018, pp. 4879–4883

2018
[27]

Content-dependent fine-grained speaker embed- ding for zero-shot speaker adaptation in text-to-speech synthesis,

Y . Zhou, C. Song, X. Li, L. Zhang, Z. Wu, Y . Bian, D. Su, and H. Meng, “Content-dependent fine-grained speaker embed- ding for zero-shot speaker adaptation in text-to-speech synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00990, 2022

2022 arXiv
[28]

Prompttts: Control- lable text-to-speech with text descriptions,

Z. Guo, Y . Leng, Y . Wu, S. Zhao, and X. Tan, “Prompttts: Control- lable text-to-speech with text descriptions,” inICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

2023
[29]

Promptspeaker: Speaker generation based on text descriptions,

Y . Zhang, G. Liu, Y . Lei, Y . Chen, H. Yin, L. Xie, and Z. Li, “Promptspeaker: Speaker generation based on text descriptions,” in2023 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–7

2023
[30]

Prompttts 2: Describing and generating voices with text prompt,

Y . Leng, Z. Guo, K. Shen, X. Tan, Z. Ju, Y . Liu, Y . Liu, D. Yang, L. Zhang, K. Songet al., “Prompttts 2: Describing and generating voices with text prompt,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02285, 2023

2023 arXiv
[31]

Prompttts++: Controlling speaker identity in prompt-based text-to-speech using natural language descriptions,

R. Shimizu, R. Yamamoto, M. Kawamura, Y . Shirahata, H. Doi, T. Komatsu, and K. Tachibana, “Prompttts++: Controlling speaker identity in prompt-based text-to-speech using natural language descriptions,” inICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech an...

2024
[32]

Libritts-p: A corpus with speaking style and speaker identity prompts for text-to-speech and style captioning,

M. Kawamura, R. Yamamoto, Y . Shirahata, T. Hasumi, and K. Tachibana, “Libritts-p: A corpus with speaking style and speaker identity prompts for text-to-speech and style captioning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07969, 2024

2024 arXiv
[33]

Libritts-r: A restored multi-speaker text-to-speech corpus,

Y . Koizumi, H. Zen, S. Karita, Y . Ding, K. Yatabe, N. Morioka, M. Bacchiani, Y . Zhang, W. Han, and A. Bapna, “Libritts-r: A restored multi-speaker text-to-speech corpus,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18802, 2023

2023 arXiv
[34]

Libritts: A corpus derived from librispeech for text- to-speech,

H. Zen, V . Dang, R. Clark, Y . Zhang, R. J. Weiss, Y . Jia, Z. Chen, and Y . Wu, “Libritts: A corpus derived from librispeech for text- to-speech,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02882, 2019

1904 arXiv
[35]

Decoupled weight decay regularization,

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

2017 arXiv
[36]

Cstr vctk corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for cstr voice cloning toolkit (ver- sion 0.92),

J. Yamagishi, C. Veaux, K. MacDonaldet al., “Cstr vctk corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for cstr voice cloning toolkit (ver- sion 0.92),”University of Edinburgh. The Centre for Speech Tech- nology Research (CSTR), pp. 271–350, 2019

2019
[37]

Lrs3-ted: a large-scale dataset for visual speech recognition,

T. Afouras, J. S. Chung, and A. Zisserman, “Lrs3-ted: a large-scale dataset for visual speech recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00496, 2018

2018 arXiv
[38]

Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Capturing speaker identity is crucial for tasks like speaker recognition [1]

Introduction Recent advancements in human speech technologies, such as recognition and synthesis, focus not only on content but also on effectively capturing and imprinting the intended speaker iden- tity. Capturing speaker identity is crucial for tasks like speaker recognition [1]. Additionally, multi-speaker settings have now become standard in speech s...

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Related works 2.1. Conventional evaluation of speaker identity Evaluating speaker identity in speech is crucial, especially in multi-speaker synthesis frameworks, where preserving the voice of the target speaker is essential. V oice conversion (VC), one of the key synthesis criteria, assesses its effectiveness by comparing the cosine similarity of speaker...

arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

It is the sigmoid-activated output of a multi-label classification network trained on a voice attribute dataset

Vo-Ve: An Explainable Voice-Vector V o-Ve is a vector representation (v) where each dimension cor- responds to a specific voice attribute class, and its value repre- sents the degree (0∼1) to which that attribute is present. It is the sigmoid-activated output of a multi-label classification network trained on a voice attribute dataset. 3.1. Voice attribut...

work page

[4] [4]

At least two annotators labeled thei-th attribute as “very”, or

work page

[5] [5]

In all other cases,y i is assigned a soft degree value

All three annotators provided a label combination with at least the intensive with{normal,normal,slightly}. In all other cases,y i is assigned a soft degree value. Table 2:Multi-label classification performance Threshold τ Precision score Recall score F1 score 0.1 0.9996±0.00390.9996±0.00390.9996±0.0039 0.6274±0.0597 0.7692±0.0470 0.2 0.9861±0.0214 0.6833...

work page arXiv

[6] [6]

medium.en

Leveraging Vo-Ve: From Evaluation to Practical Applications In this section, we evaluate the capability of V o-Ve on un- seen datasets. First, we assess speaker embedding similarity, a conventional method for evaluating speaker identity, by com- paring V o-Ve with conventional speaker embeddings [5, 6, 7] and demonstrating its comparable performance. More...

work page

[7] [7]

To fairly evaluate its potential, we designed a network architecture similar to that of the comparison system

Discussion Through extensive analysis, we demonstrated that V o-Ve pro- vides strong interpretability, a key characteristic lacking in con- ventional speaker embedding techniques. To fairly evaluate its potential, we designed a network architecture similar to that of the comparison system. However, for practical deployment across a wide range of real-worl...

work page

[8] [8]

Conclusion In this work, we introduced V o-Ve, an explainable voice vector designed for evaluating speaker identity. Unlike conventional speaker embeddings, V o-Ve provides explicit voice attribute- based interpretability while maintaining competitive perfor- mance in speaker similarity evaluations. Through extensive ex- periments, we demonstrated that V ...

work page