NPLDA: A Deep Neural PLDA Model for Speaker Verification

The state-of-art approach for speaker verification consists of a neural network based embedding extractor along with a backend generative model such as the Probabilistic Linear Discriminant Analysis (PLDA). In this work, we propose a neural network approach for backend modeling in speaker recognition. The likelihood ratio score of the generative PLDA model is posed as a discriminative similarity function and the learnable parameters of the score function are optimized using a verification cost. The proposed model, termed as neural PLDA (NPLDA), is initialized using the generative PLDA model parameters. The loss function for the NPLDA model is an approximation of the minimum detection cost function (DCF). The speaker recognition experiments using the NPLDA model are performed on the speaker verificiation task in the VOiCES datasets as well as the SITW challenge dataset. In these experiments, the NPLDA model optimized using the proposed loss function improves significantly over the state-of-art PLDA based speaker verification system.Comment: Published in Odyssey 2020, the Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop (VOiCES Special Session). Link to GitHub Implementation: https://github.com/iiscleap/NeuralPlda. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2001.0703

Attentive Statistics Pooling for Deep Speaker Embedding

This paper proposes attentive statistics pooling for deep speaker embedding in text-independent speaker verification. In conventional speaker embedding, frame-level features are averaged over all the frames of a single utterance to form an utterance-level feature. Our method utilizes an attention mechanism to give different weights to different frames and generates not only weighted means but also weighted standard deviations. In this way, it can capture long-term variations in speaker characteristics more effectively. An evaluation on the NIST SRE 2012 and the VoxCeleb data sets shows that it reduces equal error rates (EERs) from the conventional method by 7.5% and 8.1%, respectively.Comment: Proc. Interspeech 2018, pp2252--2256. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1809.0931