Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Howard W. Sabrin

dblp:99/7147 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Speech recognition and synthesis · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Speech recognition and synthesis › speaker recognition
speaker classification
0.112005
Speaker classification using composite hypothesis testing and list decoding · IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 2005
Natural language and speech › Speech recognition and synthesis
speaker recognition
0.112005
Speaker classification using composite hypothesis testing and list decoding · IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 2005
Natural language and speech › Speech recognition and synthesis › speaker recognition
speaker verification
0.112005
Speaker classification using composite hypothesis testing and list decoding · IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 2005

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

list decoding · 0.1gaussian mixture model · 0.1composite hypothesis testing · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 Speaker classification using composite hypothesis testing and list decoding
abstract
Speaker classification is seen as a hypothesis testing problem of J simple hypotheses and a composite hypothesis. The simple hypotheses represent target speakers while the composite hypothesis represents nontarget speakers. The simple hypotheses have well-defined distributions that are estimated from training signals. The distribution of the signal under the composite hypothesis is assumed to belong to a given family. The parameter of that distribution is assumed random with a prior distribution that is estimated from a large set of speakers. This formulation converts the problem to that of testing J+1 simple hypotheses. Signals corresponding to target and nontarget speakers are assumed Gaussian mixtures processes. Once the system has been trained, list decoding is applied in which a test signal is associated with a list of possible speakers. The probability that the correct speaker is on the list is maximized for a given average number of incorrect speakers on the list. Results from speaker identification and speaker verification experiments are reported. In speaker identification using a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) database with 174 target speakers, over 77% correct identification was achieved for an average of less than two erroneous speakers on the list. Speaker verification experiments on a similar database yielded results, expressed in terms of the equal-error-rate, of 6.7% and 10.1% using two decision rules.
William J. J. Roberts, Yariv Ephraim, Howard W. Sabrin
IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process.3