InterBias-SV: Compound Conditions in Speaker Verification

arXiv:2609.36500v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Speaker verification systems encounter combinations of noise, channel distortion, and changes in speech. Evaluating each condition separately does not establish whether their effects add. InterBias-SV organises this question around a four-term comparison: joint error, two marginal errors, and a common reference. Its results artefact contains 4,068 scored records across 17 experiments, 12 encoder labels, and six speech corpora, totalling 12 million trial evaluations. Three experiment families contain the same-corpus terms needed to compute additive contrasts. For labels assigned to speaker-trained encoders, their mean contrasts are +0.0026, +0.0088, and +0.0024 in equal error rate (EER), with larger variation across settings. These descriptive averages do not establish equivalence to additivity: trial matching, checkpoint identity, and parts of the condition metadata remain unverified. We also examine two interpretation problems. Near-chance EER can make additive predictions difficult to interpret, but chance performance is not a hard EER ceiling, and correlation with the prediction does not identify a saturation mechanism. Ratios of demographic gaps are unstable when their clean reference is near zero; absolute gaps provide a more direct summary. The benchmark provides condition definitions, analysis scripts, and explicit requirements for interpretable compound-condition comparisons, while separating recomputable summaries from claims that require further experimental validation.

Abstract:Speaker verification systems encounter combinations of noise, channel distortion, and changes in speech. Evaluating each condition separately does not establish whether their effects add. InterBias-SV organises this question around a four-term comparison: joint error, two marginal errors, and a common reference. Its results artefact contains 4,068 scored records across 17 experiments, 12 encoder labels, and six speech corpora, totalling 12 million trial evaluations. Three experiment families contain the same-corpus terms needed to compute additive contrasts. For labels assigned to speaker-trained encoders, their mean contrasts are +0.0026, +0.0088, and +0.0024 in equal error rate (EER), with larger variation across settings. These descriptive averages do not establish equivalence to additivity: trial matching, checkpoint identity, and parts of the condition metadata remain unverified. We also examine two interpretation problems. Near-chance EER can make additive predictions difficult to interpret, but chance performance is not a hard EER ceiling, and correlation with the prediction does not identify a saturation mechanism. Ratios of demographic gaps are unstable when their clean reference is near zero; absolute gaps provide a more direct summary. The benchmark provides condition definitions, analysis scripts, and explicit requirements for interpretable compound-condition comparisons, while separating recomputable summaries from claims that require further experimental validation.

Sound (cs.SD); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.36500 [cs.SD]

(or arXiv:2609.36500v1 [cs.SD] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.36500 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

InterBias-SV: Compound Conditions in Speaker Verification

Related coverage