Effects of language mismatch in automatic forensic voice comparison using deep learning embeddings
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In forensic voice comparison the speaker embedding has become widely popular in the last 10 years. Most of the pretrained speaker embeddings are trained on English corpora, because it is easily accessible. Thus, language dependency can be an important factor in automatic forensic voice comparison, especially when the target language is linguistically very different. There are numerous commercial systems available, but their models are mainly trained on a different language (mostly English) than the target language. In the case of a low-resource language, developing a corpus for forensic purposes containing enough speakers to train deep learning models is costly. This study aims to investigate whether a model pre-trained on English corpus can be used on a target low-resource language (here, Hungarian), different from the model is trained on. Also, often multiple samples are not available from the offender (unknown speaker). Therefore, samples are compared pairwise with and without speaker enrollment for suspect (known) speakers. Two corpora are applied that were developed especially for forensic purposes, and a third that is meant for traditional speaker verification. Two deep learning based speaker embedding vector extraction methods are used: the x-vector and ECAPA-TDNN. Speaker verification was evaluated in the likelihood-ratio framework. A comparison is made between the language combinations (modeling, LR calibration, evaluation). The results were evaluated by minCllr and EER metrics. It was found that the model pre-trained on a different language but on a corpus with a huge amount of speakers performs well on samples with language mismatch. The effect of sample durations and speaking styles were also examined. It was found that the longer the duration of the sample in question the better the performance is. Also, there is no real difference if various speaking styles are applied.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2022.
Builds on
11 of 59 references.
References · 11
- 2020ECAPA-TDNN: Emphasized Channel Attention, Propagation and Aggregation in TDNN Based Speaker Verificationcited by 628
- 2021SpeechBrain: A General-Purpose Speech Toolkitcited by 406
- 2021VoxCeleb Enrichment for Age and Gender Recognitioncited by 20
- 2022The 2021 NIST Speaker Recognition Evaluationcited by 10
- 2019Deep learning methods in speaker recognition: a reviewcited by 7
- 2017Cross-lingual Speaker Verification with Deep Feature Learningcited by 6
- 2021SpeakerStew: Scaling to Many Languages with a Triaged Multilingual Text-Dependent and Text-Independent Speaker Verification Systemcited by 5
- 2020Variable frame rate-based data augmentation to handle speaking-style variability for automatic speaker verificationcited by 4
- 2020Supervised attention for speaker recognitioncited by 2
- 2022Learning from human perception to improve automatic speaker verification in style-mismatched conditionscited by 2
- 2016System Combination for Short Utterance Speaker Recognitioncited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.