Improving Voice Trigger Detection with Metric Learning

Voice trigger detection is an important task, which enables activating a voice assistant when a target user speaks a keyword phrase. A detector is typically trained on speech data independent of speaker information and used for the voice trigger detection task. However, such a speaker independent voice trigger detector typically suffers from performance degradation on speech from underrepresented groups, such as accented speakers. In this work, we propose a novel voice trigger detector that can use a small number of utterances from a target speaker to improve detection accuracy. Our proposed model employs an encoder-decoder architecture. While the encoder performs speaker independent voice trigger detection, similar to the conventional detector, the decoder predicts a personalized embedding for each utterance. A personalized voice trigger score is then obtained as a similarity score between the embeddings of enrollment utterances and a test utterance. The personalized embedding allows adapting to target speaker's speech when computing the voice trigger score, hence improving voice trigger detection accuracy. Experimental results show that the proposed approach achieves a 38% relative reduction in a false rejection rate (FRR) compared to a baseline speaker independent voice trigger model.Comment: Submitted to InterSpeech 202

Deep Spoken Keyword Spotting:An Overview

Spoken keyword spotting (KWS) deals with the identification of keywords in audio streams and has become a fast-growing technology thanks to the paradigm shift introduced by deep learning a few years ago. This has allowed the rapid embedding of deep KWS in a myriad of small electronic devices with different purposes like the activation of voice assistants. Prospects suggest a sustained growth in terms of social use of this technology. Thus, it is not surprising that deep KWS has become a hot research topic among speech scientists, who constantly look for KWS performance improvement and computational complexity reduction. This context motivates this paper, in which we conduct a literature review into deep spoken KWS to assist practitioners and researchers who are interested in this technology. Specifically, this overview has a comprehensive nature by covering a thorough analysis of deep KWS systems (which includes speech features, acoustic modeling and posterior handling), robustness methods, applications, datasets, evaluation metrics, performance of deep KWS systems and audio-visual KWS. The analysis performed in this paper allows us to identify a number of directions for future research, including directions adopted from automatic speech recognition research and directions that are unique to the problem of spoken KWS

Keyword localisation in untranscribed speech using visually grounded speech models

Keyword localisation is the task of finding where in a speech utterance a given query keyword occurs. We investigate to what extent keyword localisation is possible using a visually grounded speech (VGS) model. VGS models are trained on unlabelled images paired with spoken captions. These models are therefore self-supervised -- trained without any explicit textual label or location information. To obtain training targets, we first tag training images with soft text labels using a pretrained visual classifier with a fixed vocabulary. This enables a VGS model to predict the presence of a written keyword in an utterance, but not its location. We consider four ways to equip VGS models with localisations capabilities. Two of these -- a saliency approach and input masking -- can be applied to an arbitrary prediction model after training, while the other two -- attention and a score aggregation approach -- are incorporated directly into the structure of the model. Masked-based localisation gives some of the best reported localisation scores from a VGS model, with an accuracy of 57% when the system knows that a keyword occurs in an utterance and need to predict its location. In a setting where localisation is performed after detection, an $F_1$ of 25% is achieved, and in a setting where a keyword spotting ranking pass is first performed, we get a localisation P@10 of 32%. While these scores are modest compared to the idealised setting with unordered bag-of-word-supervision (from transcriptions), these models do not receive any textual or location supervision. Further analyses show that these models are limited by the first detection or ranking pass. Moreover, individual keyword localisation performance is correlated with the tagging performance from the visual classifier. We also show qualitatively how and where semantic mistakes occur, e.g. that the model locates surfer when queried with ocean.Comment: 10 figures, 5 table