A Spoofing Benchmark for the 2018 Voice Conversion Challenge: Leveraging from Spoofing Countermeasures for Speech Artifact Assessment

April 23, 2018 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Tomi Kinnunen, Jaime Lorenzo-Trueba, Junichi Yamagishi, Tomoki Toda, Daisuke Saito, Fernando Villavicencio, Zhenhua Ling arXiv ID 1804.08438 Category eess.AS: Audio & Speech Cross-listed cs.CL, cs.SD, stat.ML Citations 29 Venue The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop Last Checked 2 months ago
Abstract
Voice conversion (VC) aims at conversion of speaker characteristic without altering content. Due to training data limitations and modeling imperfections, it is difficult to achieve believable speaker mimicry without introducing processing artifacts; performance assessment of VC, therefore, usually involves both speaker similarity and quality evaluation by a human panel. As a time-consuming, expensive, and non-reproducible process, it hinders rapid prototyping of new VC technology. We address artifact assessment using an alternative, objective approach leveraging from prior work on spoofing countermeasures (CMs) for automatic speaker verification. Therein, CMs are used for rejecting `fake' inputs such as replayed, synthetic or converted speech but their potential for automatic speech artifact assessment remains unknown. This study serves to fill that gap. As a supplement to subjective results for the 2018 Voice Conversion Challenge (VCC'18) data, we configure a standard constant-Q cepstral coefficient CM to quantify the extent of processing artifacts. Equal error rate (EER) of the CM, a confusability index of VC samples with real human speech, serves as our artifact measure. Two clusters of VCC'18 entries are identified: low-quality ones with detectable artifacts (low EERs), and higher quality ones with less artifacts. None of the VCC'18 systems, however, is perfect: all EERs are < 30 % (the `ideal' value would be 50 %). Our preliminary findings suggest potential of CMs outside of their original application, as a supplemental optimization and benchmarking tool to enhance VC technology.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Audio & Speech

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted