A comparison of linear and non-linear calibrations for speaker recognition
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In recent work on both generative and discriminative score to log-likelihood-ratio calibration, it was shown that linear transforms give good accuracy only for a limited range of operating points. Moreover, these methods required tailoring of the calibration training objective functions in order to target the desired region of best accuracy. Here, we generalize the linear recipes to non-linear ones. We experiment with a non-linear, non-parametric, discriminative PAV solution, as well as parametric, generative, maximum-likelihood solutions that use Gaussian, Student's T and normal-inverse-Gaussian score distributions. Experiments on NIST SRE'12 scores suggest that the non-linear methods provide wider ranges of optimal accuracy and can be trained without having to resort to objective function tailoring.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2014.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 2.
4 papers.
- 2021A Speaker Verification Backend with Robust Performance across Conditionscited by 10
- 2021Out of a hundred trials, how many errors does your speaker verifier make?cited by 4
- 2022Optimizing Tandem Speaker Verification and Anti-Spoofing Systemscited by 1
- 2022Investigation of Different Calibration Methods for Deep Speaker Embedding based Verification Systemscited by 0
- 2022Investigation of Different Calibration Methods for Deep Speaker Embedding based Verification Systems28 Mar 2022
- 2022Optimizing Tandem Speaker Verification and Anti-Spoofing Systems24 Jan 2022
- 2021Out of a hundred trials, how many errors does your speaker verifier make?1 Apr 2021
- 2021A Speaker Verification Backend with Robust Performance across Conditions2 Feb 2021