Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Comparison of Differential Performance Metrics for the Evaluation of Automatic Speaker Verification Fairness

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.17810 v1 pith:NYNXHUBO submitted 2024-04-27 eess.AS cs.SD

classification eess.AScs.SD
keywords fairnessverificationperformanceautomaticbiometriccomparisondemographicdifferent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

When decisions are made and when personal data is treated by automated processes, there is an expectation of fairness -- that members of different demographic groups receive equitable treatment. This expectation applies to biometric systems such as automatic speaker verification (ASV). We present a comparison of three candidate fairness metrics and extend previous work performed for face recognition, by examining differential performance across a range of different ASV operating points. Results show that the Gini Aggregation Rate for Biometric Equitability (GARBE) is the only one which meets three functional fairness measure criteria. Furthermore, a comprehensive evaluation of the fairness and verification performance of five state-of-the-art ASV systems is also presented. Our findings reveal a nuanced trade-off between fairness and verification accuracy underscoring the complex interplay between system design, demographic inclusiveness, and verification reliability.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When Fine-Tuning is Not Enough: Lessons from HSAD on Hybrid and Adversarial Audio Spoof Detection

    cs.SD 2025-09 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A new hybrid spoofed-audio benchmark is claimed to show that fine-tuning on it reaches 97%+ accuracy, but the reported numbers are internally inconsistent.

Pith tools