Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that a few spoken keywords—partial transcriptions—can replace clean enrollment speech as the cue for target speaker extraction, and that this keyword-guided approach is more accurate than standard enrollment-based systems.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 03:24 UTC pith:JAUT4U4V

load-bearing objection A solid, incremental keyword-guided TSE system that does what it says, but the headline outperformance claim needs error bars and the enrollment baseline needs specification; still deserves a real review. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.07977 v2 pith:JAUT4U4V submitted 2026-02-08 eess.AS

Detect, Attend and Extract: Keyword Guided Target Speaker Extraction

Haoyu Li , Yu Xi , Yidi Jiang , Shuai Wang , Kate Knill , Mark Gales , Haizhou Li , Kai Yu This is my paper
classification eess.AS
keywords target speaker extractionkeyword-guided cuepartial transcriptioncross-attention alignmentspeaker embeddingspeech separationkeyword detection and localization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Target speaker extraction normally needs a clean recording of the target speaker's voice as a cue. This paper argues that a short phrase the target actually says—roughly four consecutive keywords, about 28% of the transcript—contains enough identity and content information to extract that speaker from a mixture, with no enrollment audio at all. The proposed system first detects whether the keyword is present in the mixture, localizes where it occurs, derives a speaker embedding from the aligned speech and text, and then extracts the full target utterance. On a two-speaker benchmark, it reports better extraction quality than a system given a clean enrollment utterance, while also detecting keyword presence with F1 around 97–98% and localizing the keyword within about 100 ms. If correct, this makes TSE practical in ad-hoc meetings, voice assistants, and scenarios where a user remembers what someone said but has no voiceprint.

Core claim

The central claim is that partial transcription can serve as a self-contained cue for target speaker extraction, eliminating the need for pre-enrolled speech. The paper introduces DAE-TSE, a three-stage framework: Detect whether the supplied keywords occur in the mixture, Attend to the speaker by aligning the keyword text with the acoustic mixture via cross-attention, and Extract the target speech with a band-split recurrent network conditioned on the resulting speaker embedding. The cue encoder is trained jointly with an ASR objective (CTC) and a speaker verification objective, forcing it to encode both what was said and who said it. Experiments on a two-speaker mixture benchmark show that

What carries the argument

The Keyword-guided Cue Encoder (KCE) is the load-bearing component: it takes the mixture's log-Mel features and the keyword's phoneme embeddings, runs them through Transformer blocks augmented with cross-attention (speech frames as queries, keyword phonemes as keys/values), and outputs a weighted-layer-pooled, time-averaged speaker embedding. KCE is trained with a CTC ASR loss and a speaker verification loss, so the embedding encodes both keyword content and speaker identity. Detection and localization come from a lightweight dynamic-programming algorithm that traces the strongest monotonic path through the final cross-attention map; a threshold on that path score decides presence, and the p

Load-bearing premise

The system assumes the provided keyword is an exact, verbatim string of words the target speaker actually utters; the paper only crops keywords from ground-truth transcripts and never tests with paraphrased, misspelled, or out-of-vocabulary cues, so behavior under approximate or imperfect user input is unknown.

What would settle it

Run the trained system with keyword cues that are semantically equivalent but not verbatim—e.g., 'start the music' instead of the target's actual 'turn on the music'—or with a misspelled/homophonous keyword, and measure detection F1 and SI-SNRi. If extraction quality or detection collapses under near-synonym or slightly corrupted cues, then the practical claim that partial transcriptions work as real-world user cues fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Target speaker extraction no longer requires pre-enrolled voiceprints, so it can be applied in ad-hoc meetings, phone calls, and voice-assistant settings where the user can only recall a phrase the target spoke.
  • Because detection is built in, the system can refuse to extract when the keyword is not present, outputting silence instead of forcing a speaker match—something enrollment-based TSE cannot do.
  • Even a single keyword (about 6.5% of the transcript) is reported to beat a clean-enrollment baseline, and performance saturates around four keywords, suggesting a practical system only needs a few words.
  • The ASR and speaker-verification losses are individually necessary: removing the speaker loss drops extraction quality noticeably, and removing the ASR loss causes a severe collapse, so both content and identity must be jointly learned.
  • The same cross-attention mechanism yields keyword localization within roughly 100 ms, which is fine-grained enough for downstream uses like speaker diarization or triggering downstream commands.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's success depends on exact keyword text; a natural next step is fuzzy or phoneme-tolerant matching, since real users may misremember wording. Testing with paraphrases, misspellings, and out-of-vocabulary variants would show whether the method degrades gracefully or fails abruptly.
  • The reported near-saturation at four keywords suggests diminishing returns beyond a short phrase; a practical system could actively prompt the user for 4–5 distinctive words rather than longer text.
  • The DAE paradigm could be extended to more than two speakers and to noisy/reverberant conditions, which the paper leaves as future work; the attention-path detection may become harder as accidental alignments multiply, so scaling is the most direct robustness test.
  • Because the cue embedding is speaker-discriminative across different mixtures, the KCE could possibly be reused as a general speech-retrieval representation, retrieving a target speaker's utterances from a long recording given only a remembered phrase.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DAE-TSE, a target speaker extraction (TSE) system that uses a few keywords (partial transcriptions) as the enrollment cue instead of a clean utterance. The system has three stages: detect whether the keywords occur in the mixture, attend to the corresponding speaker via a keyword-guided cue encoder, and extract the target speech with a BSRNN backbone. The cue encoder is trained with a joint CTC ASR objective and a speaker-verification objective, with cross-attention between mixture acoustics and keyword phoneme embeddings. On Libri2Mix with held-out speakers, DAE-TSE with 4 keywords is reported to reach 16.45 dB SI-SNRi, outperforming an audio-enrollment standard TSE baseline (13.52 dB) and a stronger Multi-Layer TSE baseline (16.08 dB), while also providing keyword-presence detection with F1 around 97-98% and localization errors around 100 ms. The authors claim this is the first keyword-guided TSE system and release code and a demo.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, this is a genuinely novel and practically relevant contribution: it shows that partial transcription cues can replace clean enrollment speech for TSE, which could help in scenarios where pre-enrolled voiceprints are unavailable. The experimental design has notable strengths: held-out speakers between cue-encoder pretraining and extraction training, use of standard Libri2Mix, and ablation studies isolating the ASR and SV losses. The detection and localization capability is an additional useful feature. The paper also ships code, a demo, and uses open-source toolkits, which supports reproducibility. However, the central outperformance claim is currently supported only by single-run point estimates and by an under-specified audio-enrollment baseline, so the significance of the headline result cannot be fully assessed from the reported data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 1 / Section 4.1] The central claim that DAE-TSE outperforms standard clean-enrollment TSE rests on single-run point estimates. The advantage over the strongest audio baseline, Multi-Layer TSE, is only 0.37 dB SI-SNRi, which could easily be within run-to-run variance for neural speech extraction systems. No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any metric in Tables 1, 3, or 4. I request at least three independent training runs (or paired bootstrap over the test set) with mean and standard deviation, and a significance test for the headline DAE-TSE vs. Multi-Layer comparison. Without this, the abstract's 'outperforms standard TSE' claim is not statistically grounded.
  2. [Table 2 / Section 2.4 and 4.2] The detection threshold tau is swept over a range (0.23-0.48) and the metrics are reported for all values directly on the evaluation set. There is no validation split used to select tau before evaluation. This makes the reported detection F1 and localization errors optimistic, because tau is effectively chosen to maximize F1 on the test data. Please either fix tau using a validation set and report only the corresponding test numbers, or report a threshold-independent metric such as ROC-AUC / PR-AUC. This issue does not directly affect the extraction scores in Table 1, but it is load-bearing for the paper's detection/localization claims.
  3. [Section 3.4 / Table 1] The audio-enrollment baselines are under-specified. For the 'Audio (Standard)' baseline, the paper does not state how many enrollment utterances are used, their average length, whether they are randomly sampled or selected for best performance, or whether the exact same BSRNN backbone and training recipe are used as for DAE-TSE. The same applies to the Multi-Layer TSE baseline. Since Multi-Layer TSE is the strongest and most relevant comparison, the reader needs to know whether the 0.37 dB gap is not simply due to a poorly tuned baseline. Please specify the enrollment protocol and confirm that all systems share the same extraction backbone, training data, and optimization schedule.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] Typo: 'Auidiosetup' should be 'Audio setup'.
  2. [Section 3.1] The data-preparation section reports that training keywords are 6.5-19.5% of the full transcript, while evaluation keywords are ≤28% of a 14.1-word average transcript. The discrepancy between the average transcript lengths used in training and evaluation should be clarified; the current wording is confusing.
  3. [Section 2.4 / Algorithm 1] The backtracking logic in Algorithm 1 is hard to follow. In particular, the loops 'while k=K-1' and 'while k>0 ∧ t>0' would benefit from a one-line explanation of what k and t represent during backtracking, and why the resulting (i,j) values correspond to the keyword start and trigger frames.
  4. [Section 3.1 / Section 5] All experiments use keywords that are exact verbatim substrings of the ground-truth transcript. The paper would be stronger if it discussed (or better, tested) sensitivity to approximate cues such as misspellings, paraphrases, synonyms, or out-of-vocabulary words, especially since the conclusion promotes practical real-world use.
  5. [Table 2] The paper does not state which tau value, if any, is used when generating the extraction results in Table 1. Since detection is part of the DAE-TSE pipeline, the relationship between the detection threshold and the reported extraction results should be made explicit.
  6. [General] Minor language issues: 'Mainstreaming TSE systems' should be 'Mainstream TSE systems'; 'neural modu les' in the NeMo reference is a typo. The duplicate Zmolikova reference entries could be merged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: extraction and detection claims are held-out experimental results, with no equation reducing a reported quantity to its training input or to a self-citation.

full rationale

DAE-TSE is presented as an empirical system, not as a derivation from first principles. The KCE is trained with a joint CTC-ASR and speaker-verification objective (Eqs. 7-12), and the extraction backbone is trained with SI-SNR (Eq. 16); all headline numbers in Tables 1-4 are measured on held-out Libri2Mix data with speakers disjoint from KCE pretraining, as stated in Sec. 3.2. The only data-dependent scalar in the detection module is threshold tau, but Table 2 reports a sweep and the extraction comparisons do not depend on selecting that threshold. Keywords are sampled from ground-truth transcripts (Sec. 3.1), which limits robustness to imperfect cues but does not make the extraction result identical to the input by construction. The self-citations (WeSep in Sec. 2.3 and Multi-Layer TSE in Table 1) function as open-source implementation and baseline references, respectively; neither supplies a uniqueness theorem nor defines the reported improvement. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no claim is forced by a self-citation chain. The statistical fragility of the 0.37 dB margin over Multi-Layer TSE is a correctness/evidence concern, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical systems paper, so the ledger mostly contains domain assumptions about the data and cue, plus a few hand-set hyperparameters. No invented entities. The only genuinely data-tuned parameter is the detection threshold tau, which is swept on the evaluation set.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (ASR/SV loss weight) = 0.5
    Hyperparameter balancing L_CTC and L_Speaker in Eq. 12; chosen by hand, not swept.
  • beta (regularization coefficient) = 0.01
    Weight for the norm-regularization term in Eq. 11; hand-set.
  • tau (detection threshold) = 0.33 (best F1)
    Threshold on the max path score S in Algorithm 1; swept over the evaluation set and best F1 chosen (Table 2). This is fit to the test data.
  • Keyword count/context = 4 words at eval, 2-6 at train
    Number of consecutive words used as the cue; ablation shows monotonic improvement, so the headline result uses k=4.
  • Encoder layer count and hidden dimension
    Architecture sizes of the Transformer encoders are not given in the paper, so they are unstated free parameters.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Keyword cue is a faithful, exact sequence of words from the target speaker's utterance
    During training and evaluation the keywords are always cropped verbatim from the ground-truth transcription; no experiments test approximate or noisy keyword cues (Sec 3.1 Keyword Selection).
  • domain assumption Mixtures contain exactly two speakers with no background noise or reverberation
    All experiments use Libri2Mix 'min' two-speaker mixtures; the conclusion defers robustness to more speakers, sparse overlap, noise, and reverberation to future work (Sec 5).
  • domain assumption Target speaker identity is covered by the SV training set
    KCE is trained with a speaker classification head over 2,087 LibriSpeech speakers; at test time the speaker must have been seen in the KCE pretraining (though disjoint from backbone training).
  • domain assumption Cross-attention map alignment is reliable enough for the DP detection algorithm
    Detection/localization relies on the final-layer attention map M_N having a clear diagonal path when the keyword is present (Sec 2.4, Fig 3). This is empirically shown but not guaranteed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12282 in / 10465 out tokens · 100036 ms · 2026-08-03T03:24:18.664803+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Target speaker extraction (TSE) aims to extract the speech of a target speaker from mixtures containing multiple competing speakers. Conventional TSE systems predominantly rely on speaker cues, such as pre-enrolled speech, to identify and isolate the target speaker. However, in many practical scenarios, clean enrollment utterances are unavailable, limiting the applicability of existing approaches. In this work, we propose DAE-TSE, a keyword-guided TSE framework that specifies the target speaker through distinct keywords they utter. By leveraging keywords (i.e., partial transcriptions) as cues, our approach provides a flexible and practical alternative to enrollment-based TSE. DAE-TSE follows the Detect-Attend-Extract (DAE) paradigm: it first detects the presence of the given keywords, then attends to the corresponding speaker based on the keyword content, and finally extracts the target speech. Experimental results demonstrate that DAE-TSE outperforms standard TSE systems that rely on clean enrollment speech. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to utilize partial transcription as a cue for specifying the target speaker in TSE, offering a flexible and practical solution for real-world scenarios. Our code and demo page are now publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.07977 by Haizhou Li, Haoyu Li, Kai Yu, Kate Knill, Mark Gales, Shuai Wang, Yidi Jiang, Yu Xi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An illustration of the application scenario and objectives of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The overview of the proposed DAE-TSE. (1) The left part of the figure is the structure of the Keyword-guided Cue Encoder (KCE). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cross-attention heatmaps for a positive sample (left, key [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: t-SNE scatter plot of speaker embeddings, with each color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. WeSep: A Modular and Cue-Composable Framework for Target Speaker Extraction

    eess.AS 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    WeSep decouples cue frontends from separator backbones via standardized interfaces and shows stable multi-cue and missing-cue TSE training across enrollment, spatial, visual, and textual modalities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Target language extraction at multilingual cocktail parties

    [Borsdorfet al., 2021 ] Marvin Borsdorf, Haizhou Li, and Tanja Schultz. Target language extraction at multilingual cocktail parties. In2021 IEEE Automatic Speech Recog- nition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU), pages 717–

    2021

  2. [4]

    V oxceleb2: Deep speaker recognition

    [Chunget al., 2018 ] Joon Son Chung, Arsha Nagrani, and Andrew Zisserman. V oxceleb2: Deep speaker recognition. InProc. ISCA Interspeech, pages 1086–1090,

    2018

  3. [7]

    Clipsep: Learning text-queried sound separation with noisy unlabeled videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07065,

    [Donget al., 2022 ] Hao-Wen Dong, Naoya Takahashi, Yuki Mitsufuji, Julian McAuley, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. Clipsep: Learning text-queried sound separation with noisy unlabeled videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07065,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [8]

    Typing to listen at the cocktail party: Text-guided target speaker extraction

    [Haoet al., 2023 ] Xiang Hao, Jibin Wu, Jianwei Yu, Chenglin Xu, and Kay Chen Tan. Typing to listen at the cocktail party: Text-guided target speaker extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07284,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [11]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    [Kingma and Ba, 2015] Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun, editors,3rd International Con- ference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Pro- ceedings,

    2015

  6. [14]

    Audio-visual active speaker extraction for sparsely overlapped multi-talker speech

    [Liet al., 2024 ] Junjie Li, Ruijie Tao, Zexu Pan, Meng Ge, Shuai Wang, and Haizhou Li. Audio-visual active speaker extraction for sparsely overlapped multi-talker speech. In Proc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 10666–10670,

    2024

  7. [15]

    Av- sepformer: Cross-attention sepformer for audio-visual tar- get speaker extraction

    [Linet al., 2023 ] Jiuxin Lin, Xinyu Cai, Heinrich Dinkel, Jun Chen, Zhiyong Yan, Yongqing Wang, Junbo Zhang, Zhiyong Wu, Yujun Wang, and Helen Meng. Av- sepformer: Cross-attention sepformer for audio-visual tar- get speaker extraction. InProc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 1–5,

    2023

  8. [16]

    Plumbley, and Wenwu Wang

    [Liuet al., 2022 ] Xubo Liu, Haohe Liu, Qiuqiang Kong, Xinhao Mei, Jinzheng Zhao, Qiushi Huang, Mark D. Plumbley, and Wenwu Wang. Separate what you describe: Language-queried audio source separation. InProc. ISCA Interspeech, pages 1801–1805,

    2022

  9. [17]

    Target speaker extraction with cur- riculum learning

    [Liuet al., 2024 ] Yun Liu, Xuechen Liu, Xiaoxiao Miao, and Junichi Yamagishi. Target speaker extraction with cur- riculum learning. InProc. ISCA Interspeech, pages 4348– 4352,

    2024

  10. [18]

    Conv-tasnet: Surpassing ideal time-frequency magnitude masking for speech separation.IEEE/ACM Trans

    [Luo and Mesgarani, 2019] Yi Luo and Nima Mesgarani. Conv-tasnet: Surpassing ideal time-frequency magnitude masking for speech separation.IEEE/ACM Trans. ASLP ., pages 1256–1266,

    2019

  11. [19]

    Music source separation with band-split RNN.IEEE ACM Trans

    [Luo and Yu, 2023] Yi Luo and Jianwei Yu. Music source separation with band-split RNN.IEEE ACM Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process., 31:1893–1901,

    2023

  12. [20]

    Clapsep: Leverag- ing contrastive pre-trained model for multi-modal query- conditioned target sound extraction.IEEE/ACM Transac- tions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing,

    [Maet al., 2024 ] Hao Ma, Zhiyuan Peng, Xu Li, Mingjie Shao, Xixin Wu, and Ju Liu. Clapsep: Leverag- ing contrastive pre-trained model for multi-modal query- conditioned target sound extraction.IEEE/ACM Transac- tions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing,

    2024

  13. [21]

    Visualizing data using t-sne.Journal of machine learning research, 9(Nov):2579–2605,

    [Maaten and Hinton, 2008] Laurens van der Maaten and Ge- offrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne.Journal of machine learning research, 9(Nov):2579–2605,

    2008

  14. [23]

    All neural low- latency directional speech extraction

    [Pandeyet al., 2024 ] Ashutosh Pandey, Sanha Lee, Juan Az- carreta, Daniel Wong, and Buye Xu. All neural low- latency directional speech extraction. InProc. ISCA In- terspeech, pages 4328–4332,

    2024

  15. [24]

    Target speech extraction with pre-trained self-supervised learning models

    [Penget al., 2024 ] Junyi Peng, Marc Delcroix, Tsubasa Ochiai, Oldˇrich Plchot, Shoko Araki, and Jan ˇCernock´y. Target speech extraction with pre-trained self-supervised learning models. InProc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 10421– 10425,

    2024

  16. [25]

    Sam audio: Segment anything in audio.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18099,

    [Shiet al., 2025 ] Bowen Shi, Andros Tjandra, John Hoff- man, Helin Wang, Yi-Chiao Wu, Luya Gao, Julius Richter, Matt Le, Apoorv Vyas, Sanyuan Chen, et al. Sam audio: Segment anything in audio.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18099,

    arXiv 2025

  17. [27]

    A lightweight hy- brid multi-channel speech extraction system with direc- tional voice activity detection

    [Sunet al., 2024 ] Tianchi Sun, Tong Lei, Xu Zhang, Yuxi- ang Hu, Changbao Zhu, and Jing Lu. A lightweight hy- brid multi-channel speech extraction system with direc- tional voice activity detection. InProc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 1486–1490,

    2024

  18. [28]

    Audio-visual tar- get speaker extraction with reverse selective auditory at- tention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18501,

    [Taoet al., 2024 ] Ruijie Tao, Xinyuan Qian, Yidi Jiang, Jun- jie Li, Jiadong Wang, and Haizhou Li. Audio-visual tar- get speaker extraction with reverse selective auditory at- tention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18501,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [29]

    Wespeaker: A research and pro- duction oriented speaker embedding learning toolkit

    [Wanget al., 2023 ] Hongji Wang, Chengdong Liang, Shuai Wang, Zhengyang Chen, Binbin Zhang, Xu Xiang, Yanlei Deng, and Yanmin Qian. Wespeaker: A research and pro- duction oriented speaker embedding learning toolkit. In Proc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 1–5,

    2023

  20. [30]

    Unified audio visual cues for target speaker extraction

    [Wuet al., 2024 ] Tianci Wu, Shulin He, Jiahui Pan, Haifeng Huang, Zhijian Mo, and Xueliang Zhang. Unified audio visual cues for target speaker extraction. InProc. ISCA Interspeech, pages 4343–4347,

    2024

  21. [31]

    Target speaker extraction with ultra-short reference speech by ve-ve framework

    [Yanget al., 2023 ] Lei Yang, Wei Liu, Lufen Tan, Jaemo Yang, and Han-Gil Moon. Target speaker extraction with ultra-short reference speech by ve-ve framework. InProc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 1–5,

    2023

  22. [32]

    Tspeech-ai sys- tem description to the 5th deep noise suppression (DNS) challenge

    [Yuet al., 2023 ] Jianwei Yu, Hangting Chen, Yi Luo, Rongzhi Gu, Weihua Li, and Chao Weng. Tspeech-ai sys- tem description to the 5th deep noise suppression (DNS) challenge. InProc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 1–2. IEEE,

    2023

  23. [33]

    Multi-level speaker representation for target speaker ex- traction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16059,

    [Zhanget al., 2024a ] Ke Zhang, Junjie Li, Shuai Wang, Yangjie Wei, Yi Wang, Yannan Wang, and Haizhou Li. Multi-level speaker representation for target speaker ex- traction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16059,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [34]

    Mossformer2: Com- bining transformer and rnn-free recurrent network for en- hanced time-domain monaural speech separation

    [Zhaoet al., 2024 ] Shengkui Zhao, Yukun Ma, Chongjia Ni, Chong Zhang, Hao Wang, Trung Hieu Nguyen, Kun Zhou, Jia Qi Yip, Dianwen Ng, and Bin Ma. Mossformer2: Com- bining transformer and rnn-free recurrent network for en- hanced time-domain monaural speech separation. InProc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 10356–10360,

    2024

  25. [35]

    Neural target speech extraction: An overview.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, pages 8–29, 2023

    [Zmolikovaet al., 2023b ] Katerina Zmolikova, Marc Del- croix, Tsubasa Ochiai, Keisuke Kinoshita, Jan ˇCernock´y, and Dong Yu. Neural target speech extraction: An overview.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, pages 8–29, 2023

    2023

  26. [2008]

    Lib- rispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books

    [Panayotov and others, 2015] Vassil Panayotov et al. Lib- rispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books. InProc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 5206–5210,

    2015

  27. [2015]

    Nemo: a toolkit for building ai applications using neural modu les.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09577,

    [Kuchaievet al., 2019 ] Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jason Li, Huyen Nguyen, Oleksii Hrinchuk, Ryan Leary, Boris Ginsburg, Samuel Kriman, Stanislav Beliaev, Vitaly Lavrukhin, Jack Cook, et al. Nemo: a toolkit for building ai applications using neural modu les.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09577,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [2018]

    Librimix: An open-source dataset for generaliz- able speech separation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.11262,

    [Cosentinoet al., 2020 ] Joris Cosentino, Manuel Pariente, Samuele Cornell, Antoine Deleforge, and Emmanuel Vin- cent. Librimix: An open-source dataset for generaliz- able speech separation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.11262,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [2019]

    Learning pronunciation from a foreign lan- guage in speech synthesis networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.09364,

    [Leeet al., 2018 ] Younggun Lee, Suwon Shon, and Taesu Kim. Learning pronunciation from a foreign lan- guage in speech synthesis networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.09364,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [2020]

    Ecapa-tdnn: Empha- sized channel attention, propagation and aggregation in tdnn based speaker verification

    [Desplanqueset al., 2020 ] Brecht Desplanques, Jenthe Thienpondt, and Kris Demuynck. Ecapa-tdnn: Empha- sized channel attention, propagation and aggregation in tdnn based speaker verification. InProc. ISCA Interspeech, pages 3830–3834,

    2020

  31. [2021]

    Experts versus all- rounders: target language extraction for multiple target languages

    [Borsdorfet al., 2022 ] Marvin Borsdorf, Kevin Scheck, Haizhou Li, and Tanja Schultz. Experts versus all- rounders: target language extraction for multiple target languages. InProc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 846–850. IEEE,

    2022

  32. [2022]

    Wavlm: Large-scale self-supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing.IEEE J

    [Chenet al., 2022 ] Sanyuan Chen, Chengyi Wang, Zhengyang Chen, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Jinyu Li, Naoyuki Kanda, Takuya Yoshioka, Xiong Xiao, Jian Wu, Long Zhou, Shuo Ren, Yanmin Qian, Yao Qian, Jian Wu, Michael Zeng, Xiangzhan Yu, and Furu Wei. Wavlm: Large-scale self-supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing.IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal...

    2022

  33. [2023]

    3s-tse: Efficient three-stage target speaker extraction for real-time and low- resource applications

    [Heet al., 2024 ] Shulin He, Jinjiang Liu, Hao Li, Yang Yang, Fei Chen, and Xueliang Zhang. 3s-tse: Efficient three-stage target speaker extraction for real-time and low- resource applications. InProc. IEEE ICASSP, pages 421– 425,

    2024

  34. [2024]

    Centroid estimation with transformer-based speaker embedder for robust target speaker extraction

    [Heoet al., 2024 ] Woon-Haeng Heo, Joongyu Maeng, Yoseb Kang, and Namhyun Cho. Centroid estimation with transformer-based speaker embedder for robust target speaker extraction. InProc. ISCA Interspeech, pages 4333–4337,

    2024

  35. [2025]

    Lever- aging language information for target language extraction

    [Sinan Yıldırımet al., 2025 ] Mehmet Sinan Yıldırım, Ruijie Tao, Wupeng Wang, Junyi Ao, and Haizhou Li. Lever- aging language information for target language extraction. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2511,

    2025