Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Why Did the x-Vector System Miss a Target Speaker? Impact of Acoustic Mismatch Upon Target Score on VoxCeleb Data

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

arxiv 2008.04578 v1 pith:OVEWGCAQ submitted 2020-08-11 eess.AS cs.CYcs.SD

classification eess.AScs.CYcs.SD
keywords mismatchacousticspeakertargetx-vectordatalearningmachine
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Modern automatic speaker verification (ASV) relies heavily on machine learning implemented through deep neural networks. It can be difficult to interpret the output of these black boxes. In line with interpretative machine learning, we model the dependency of ASV detection score upon acoustic mismatch of the enrollment and test utterances. We aim to identify mismatch factors that explain target speaker misses (false rejections). We use distance in the first- and second-order statistics of selected acoustic features as the predictors in a linear mixed effects model, while a standard Kaldi x-vector system forms our ASV black-box. Our results on the VoxCeleb data reveal the most prominent mismatch factor to be in F0 mean, followed by mismatches associated with formant frequencies. Our findings indicate that x-vector systems lack robustness to intra-speaker variations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Voiceprint Fallacy: Why Voices Are Not Unique Biometric Imprints

    eess.AS 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools