SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Ewald Enzinger

Publications and source records attributed to Ewald Enzinger.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Statistical Models in Forensic Voice Comparison

This chapter describes a number of signal-processing and statistical-modeling techniques that are commonly used to calculate likelihood ratios in human-supervised automatic approaches to forensic voice comparison. Techniques described include mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) feature extraction, Gaussian mixture model - universal background model (GMM-UBM) systems, i-vector - probabilistic linear discriminant analysis (i-vector PLDA) systems, deep neural network (DNN) based systems (including senone posterior i-vectors, bottleneck features, and embeddings / x-vectors), mismatch compensation, and score-to-likelihood-ratio conversion (aka calibration). Empirical validation of forensic-voice-comparison systems is also covered. The aim of the chapter is to bridge the gap between general introductions to forensic voice comparison and the highly technical automatic-speaker-recognition literature from which the signal-processing and statistical-modeling techniques are mostly drawn. Knowledge of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of forensic evidence is assumed. It is hoped that the material presented here will be of value to students of forensic voice comparison and to researchers interested in learning about statistical modeling techniques that could potentially also be applied to data from other branches of forensic science.

stat.AP

Reply to Hicks et al 2017, Reply to Morrison et al 2016 Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison, Reply to Hicks et al 2015 The importance of distinguishing info from evidence/observations when formulating propositions

The present letter to the editor is one in a series of publications discussing the formulation of hypotheses (propositions) for the evaluation of strength of forensic evidence. In particular, the discussion focusses on the issue of what information may be used to define the relevant population specified as part of the different-speaker hypothesis in forensic voice comparison. The previous publications in the series are: Hicks et al. 2015 ; Morrison et al. (2016) ; Hicks et al. (2017) . The latter letter to the editor mostly resolves the apparent disagreement between the two groups of authors. We briefly discuss one outstanding point of apparent disagreement, and attempt to correct a misinterpretation of our earlier remarks. We believe that at this point there is no actual disagreement, and that both groups of authors are calling for greater collaboration in order to reduce the likelihood of future misunderstandings.

stat.AP