Speaker Verification Under Real Classroom Conditions for English Speech

Carol Espy-Wilson; Jing Liu; Meghavarshini Krishnaswamy; Saba Tabatabaee

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Speaker Verification Under Real Classroom Conditions for English Speech

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A speaker-verification pipeline built from WavLM self-supervised representations and a TDNN back-end, pre-trained with momentum contrast on unlabeled classroom audio and fine-tuned on a small labeled set, beats SSL-only and ECAPA-TDNN…

desk verdict Real classroom SV dataset and a plausible two-stage SSL recipe; the numbers are probably right, but the paper must clarify that test classrooms were excluded from SSL pretraining before I'd trust them. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03623 v2 pith:XCA34EJB submitted 2026-08-04 eess.AS

Saba Tabatabaee , Jing Liu , Meghavarshini Krishnaswamy , Carol Espy-Wilson This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AS

keywords speakerverificationclassroomaudiochildren'sspeechself-supervisedlearningMoCoWavLMTDNNequalerrorrate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks how to verify who is speaking in real 6th-to-8th grade classrooms, where speakers include children and adults and the dominant noise is babble from group discussions. Its central claim is that a speaker-verification model built from WavLM self-supervised speech representations plus a time-delay neural network back-end, pre-trained with momentum contrast (MoCo) on unlabeled classroom audio and then fine-tuned on a small labeled subset, outperforms both an SSL-only version of the same model and the widely used ECAPA-TDNN architecture. Across five classroom splits, the two-stage recipe reduces average Equal Error Rate from 17.78% to 15.40% relative to SSL-only, and from 20.26% for a VoxCeleb-trained ECAPA-TDNN baseline and 16.44% for a classroom-adapted ECAPA-TDNN. The authors also report that the same WavLM-TDNN model transfers to a Spanish-English classroom session better than the ECAPA baselines, and if correct, the practical message is that a small amount of labeled classroom speech combined with self-supervised pretraining on abundant unlabeled classroom audio is the more effective route to classroom speaker verification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the WavLM-TDNN architecture: WavLM-Large's 25 transformer layers are combined by a learnable softmax-weighted sum to form a frame-level representation, which then feeds two parallel branches—a stack of five dilated TDNN blocks with attention pooling and a GELU-dense branch with temporal attention pooling—whose outputs are fused into a 256-dimensional speaker embedding. The two-stage training procedure is the second piece of machinery: MoCo self-supervised pre-training with a 65,536-entry memory queue and InfoNCE loss, followed by supervised fine-tuning with cross-entropy, AAM-Softmax, and triplet losses.

What would settle it

Open the training logs or data lists for each fold and check whether any utterance from the four held-out test classrooms appears in the MoCo pre-training set or in the supervised fine-tuning set for that fold. If any does, the reported 13.39% relative EER improvement of two-stage over SSL-only, and all WavLM-TDNN versus ECAPA-TDNN comparisons, are confounded by evaluation leakage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a training recipe rather than a new loss function: take a large self-supervised speech model (WavLM-Large), attach a TDNN back-end with attention pooling, pre-train the whole stack with a MoCo contrastive objective on 218 hours of unlabeled classroom recordings, and then fine-tune on roughly 10 hours of speaker-labeled utterances using a sum of cross-entropy, AAM-Softmax, and triplet losses. Evaluated with five-fold cross-validation at the classroom level, this two-stage WavLM-TDNN achieves 15.40% average EER, beating SSL-only WavLM-TDNN (17.78%), classroom-adapted ECAPA-TDNN (16.44%), and the VoxCeleb-trained ECAPA-TDNN baseline (20.26%). The advantage also holds on a held-out multilingual (Spanish/English) classroom session, where WavLM-TDNN reaches 15.89% EER versus 16.82% for classroom-adapted ECAPA-TDNN and 22.43% for the VoxCeleb baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The five-fold evaluation is trustworthy only if none of the four held-out test classrooms' audio is used in either the SSL pre-training or supervised fine-tuning for that fold; the paper does not explicitly state that SSL pre-training excludes test classrooms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Practitioners building classroom analytics can adopt self-supervised pretraining on unlabeled classroom audio plus a few hours of labeled enrollment data instead of relying on adult-only pretrained models.
The consistent per-fold advantage of two-stage over SSL-only suggests that supervised fine-tuning is what closes the domain gap to classroom babble, not SSL pretraining alone.
WavLM's multi-layer representations combined with a TDNN back-end provide the best configuration among the models tested for child-and-adult mixtures in classrooms.
The same model retains its advantage on a Spanish-English classroom session, implying the recipe may transfer to multilingual classroom data, though the test set is small.
Domain adaptation to classroom data itself yields large gains, as shown by the 18.85% average relative EER reduction when ECAPA-TDNN is fine-tuned on the EDSI dataset versus the VoxCeleb-trained baseline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The authors leave implicit that only about 10 hours of labeled data drive the fine-tuning gain across a 218-hour corpus; a natural ablation would vary the labeled subset size and measure the EER curve to see whether the benefit saturates quickly.
The fold-level EER differences the authors attribute to group-discussion babble could be tested directly by measuring per-utterance babble-to-speech ratio in each test classroom and correlating it with fold EER, which would either support or qualify their interpretation of Fold 5 as hardest and Fold 2 as easiest.
The multilingual result, though tiny, hints that WavLM's language-agnostic representations might reduce the need for language-specific adaptation data in classroom SV; a larger multi-lingual classroom corpus would be needed to confirm this.
If the five-fold evaluation is shown to be free of leakage, the two-stage recipe's consistent advantage suggests that SSL pretraining on in-domain unlabeled audio is more valuable than pretraining on large out-of-domain adult speech corpora, which is a testable comparison the paper itself does not make.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a useful application paper, not a breakthrough. The authors have a real classroom dataset, they test a sensible two-stage recipe (MoCo SSL then supervised fine-tuning), and they get consistent EER gains over SSL-only across five folds. The WavLM-TDNN also beats ECAPA-TDNN on their classroom test sets. If I had to bet, the direction is right and the paper deserves a serious referee. But there is one ambiguity that has to be resolved before publication: they never explicitly say that the SSL pretraining in each fold uses only the 14 training classrooms, not all 18. Section 2.1 says the split is classroom-level with four held out, but Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 describe pretraining on 'the EDSI dataset' with no fold-by-fold restriction. With MoCo's 65k queue, unlabeled audio from held-out classrooms could leak speaker- and channel-specific shortcuts into the encoder, inflating EER improvements. I don't think it's deliberate, but the protocol needs to state the exclusion explicitly and ideally provide per-fold file lists or an exclusion log. Without that, the headline numbers are not fully trustworthy.

The other weaknesses are less severe. The WavLM-TDNN vs ECAPA-TDNN comparison is capacity-confounded: WavLM-Large plus a TDNN has orders of magnitude more parameters than ECAPA base. That doesn't make the result useless — the paper also trains ECAPA on the same classroom data with the same two-stage recipe, which is a fairer baseline — but it means the 6.32% relative gain shouldn't be read as architectural superiority. Also, there are no significance tests or confidence intervals anywhere. The five-fold spread is pretty wide (EERs 11.84–18.41), so some of the differences could be noise. The multilingual experiment is a nice extension but 120 utterances is too small to support strong claims. The dataset is private and no code is shipped, so the exact numbers aren't reproducible. Finally, the 'first study' claim is contradicted by the authors' own Interspeech 2025 paper [5], which already did classroom SV; they should tone that down to 'first to combine WavLM and TDNN specifically in classrooms.'

What the paper does well: it uses a genuinely realistic classroom dataset with both children and adults, the SSL-vs-two-stage comparison is controlled (same architecture, same folds), and the augmentation strategy (babble from a children's corpus, reverberation) is sensible. The observation that fold difficulty tracks group-discussion babble is a nice practical insight.

Who it's for: researchers working on speaker verification in education or child speech; anyone applying SSL to noisy, low-resource domains. It's not going to change the field, but it's a solid incremental contribution with a useful dataset. I'd send it to peer review with a request for revision: clarify the pretraining split, add confidence intervals or significance tests, and temper the claims.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses speaker verification (SV) in real classroom environments containing both child and adult speakers, using an in-house English-speaking classroom dataset (EDSI) with partial speaker labels. It proposes a WavLM-TDNN model that combines WavLM-Large self-supervised representations with a TDNN backend and attention pooling. Two training strategies are compared: SSL-only using the MoCo framework versus a two-stage approach that first pre-trains with MoCo and then fine-tunes with supervised losses (cross-entropy, AAM-Softmax, triplet). Five-fold classroom-level cross-validation is used. The paper reports that the two-stage strategy consistently outperforms SSL-only across all folds (average relative EER reduction 13.39%), and that WavLM-TDNN outperforms both an off-the-shelf ECAPA-TDNN baseline (relative reduction 23.99%) and an ECAPA-TDNN trained on the classroom data (relative reduction 6.32%). A small multilingual evaluation (120 utterances, 29 minutes) is also reported.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides practically relevant evidence that self-supervised pre-training followed by limited supervised fine-tuning improves SV in noisy, child-and-adult classroom conditions, and that large pre-trained SSL models combined with TDNN backends can beat standard ECAPA-TDNN in such settings. The dataset and task are understudied, and the classroom-level evaluation protocol is appropriate. The controlled comparison between SSL-only and two-stage training (same architecture and data) is a strength, with consistent results across all five folds. However, the headline architecture comparison is capacity-confounded, and the absence of statistical tests and a clear statement on train/test classroom separation weakens confidence in the quantitative claims.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.1 vs. Sections 2.3.1/2.3.2] The paper does not explicitly state that the MoCo SSL pre-training for each fold is restricted to the 14 training classrooms. Section 2.1 says data from the remaining 14 classrooms are used for training, but Section 2.3.1 says SSL is applied to "the EDSI corpus" and Section 2.3.2 describes pre-training on "the EDSI dataset, including both EDSI (WO-ID) and EDSI (W-ID)" with no fold-by-fold exclusion. Since the four held-out test classrooms are part of EDSI (W-ID), if their audio is included in SSL pre-training, the encoder could exploit speaker- and channel-specific shortcuts, biasing both the absolute EERs and the SSL-versus-two-stage comparison in Table 1 and Table 2. Please state explicitly that, for each fold, SSL pre-training uses only the 14 training classrooms, and provide per-fold data lists or a code release to verify this.
[Section 3.2, Table 2] The WavLM-TDNN versus ECAPA-TDNN comparison is capacity-confounded. WavLM-Large is a very large model pre-trained on massive external speech corpora, while the ECAPA-TDNN base is a small model trained from scratch (or off-the-shelf from VoxCeleb). The observed 6.32% relative EER improvement over the EDSI-trained ECAPA-TDNN may be due to the size and external pre-training of WavLM rather than the proposed architectural combination. A controlled comparison is needed, for example by using the same TDNN backend with a smaller pre-trained front-end, or by training ECAPA-TDNN on WavLM features, or by reporting parameter counts and ablation results that isolate the contribution of the proposed architecture.
[Sections 3.1 and 3.2, Tables 1 and 2] No significance tests or confidence intervals are reported for any of the EER differences. With only five folds, the differences between WavLM-TDNN and the EDSI-trained ECAPA-TDNN are small (0.80–1.24 percentage points per fold), and the per-fold improvements might not be statistically reliable. The paper should report the number of trials per fold (or at least per test classroom), use paired tests across folds (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank), and provide confidence intervals or bootstrap estimates for the average EER and for the relative reduction percentages. Without this, the claim of a 6.32% relative improvement is not well supported.
[Section 3.3, Table 3] The multilingual evaluation is based on only 120 utterances with a total duration of 29 minutes, and the paper does not specify the number of speakers, enrollment details, trial construction, or whether the same classroom-level separation was applied. This is too small and under-specified to support the strong conclusion that WavLM-TDNN "generalizes effectively to non-English classroom speech." Please report the number of speakers, the enrollment/test split, and the trial counts, or reframe the result as a preliminary observation.

minor comments (6)

[Section 1, Contributions] "including both enrollment and classrooms recordings" contains a typo; it should be "enrollment and classroom recordings." The comma after "classrooms" is also misplaced.
[Section 2.1] The paper should define how relative EER reductions are computed. It appears to be (baseline_avg − proposed_avg)/baseline_avg, but this should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.
[Section 2.2] The description of the WavLM-TDNN architecture would benefit from a clear statement of the initial weights: is the WavLM encoder initialized from the public WavLM-Large checkpoint, and are all parameters updated during SSL pre-training? This affects interpretation of the SSL results.
[Equation (2)] The notation in Equation (2) is ambiguous: the denominator sums over j=0 to K, but it is not clear whether j=0 corresponds to the positive key or the first negative. Please clarify the indexing (e.g., one positive plus K negatives, with the positive excluded from the negative set).
[Section 2.1] The evaluation protocol is under-specified: the paper does not describe how verification trials are constructed (e.g., one enrollment utterance versus each test utterance, score normalization, or threshold selection). This information is necessary for interpreting the EER numbers.
[Section 3.3] The caption of Table 3 says "using EER (%)" but the table only shows a single column for "Multi-lingual classroom"; please specify whether this is the average over multiple sessions or a single held-out session.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all headline claims are measured EER comparisons; no prediction reduces to fitted inputs, self-citation, or definitional equivalence.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical machine-learning study, and its central claims — that the two-stage training strategy outperforms SSL-only training, and that WavLM-TDNN outperforms ECAPA-TDNN in classroom speaker verification — are supported by EER values measured on classroom-level held-out folds, not by any derivation from the model's own fitted parameters. The training objectives in Equations 1–3 are standard SSL and supervised losses, and the reported EERs are computed from enrollment and test trials as described in Section 2.3.2. There is no equation where a predicted quantity is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation, reference [5], appears in the related-work context and is not load-bearing for any of the paper's conclusions. The reader's concern that Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 do not explicitly state that MoCo pre-training in each fold excludes the four test classrooms is a potential data-leakage or experimental-validity issue, not a circularity issue: even if true, it would bias the reported EERs, but it would not make a claim true by construction or reduce a derivation to its inputs. Accordingly, the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central performance claims rest on the quality of the private EDSI labels, the validity of the classroom-level split, the choice of WavLM-Large as a feature extractor, and the SSL objective learning speaker rather than channel information. None of these are verified with auxiliary evidence such as inter-annotator agreement, leakage checks, or embedding analysis.

free parameters (5)

InfoNCE temperature tau = 0.07
Chosen by hand (Section 2.3.1, Equation 2); standard value for MoCo, not derived from the data.
MoCo momentum m = 0.996
EMA decay for the key encoder (Equation 1); standard MoCo value, hand-set.
Memory queue size K = 65536
Number of negative keys in InfoNCE (Section 2.3.1); hand-set.
Augmentation probability = 0.6
Probability of applying noise or reverberation to each sample (Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2); hand-set.
Training epochs and learning rates = 250 epochs, 5e-3 to 5e-5; fine-tune 5e-5 to 5e-7
Training schedule (Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2); hand-set without reported validation-based selection.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The EDSI (W-ID) annotations are correct ground-truth speaker identities.
Evaluation EER depends entirely on these labels; inter-annotator agreement is not reported (Section 2.1).
domain assumption Classroom-level splitting guarantees speaker independence between train and test.
No speaker overlap between classrooms is stated, but the number of speakers per classroom and the possibility of cross-classroom duplicate voices is not verified (Section 2.1).
domain assumption WavLM-Large provides frame-level representations suitable for SV when combined with a TDNN.
This is the design premise of the proposed model, taken from prior works [22, 23]; not re-derived (Section 2.2).
domain assumption InfoNCE loss with MoCo learns speaker-discriminative embeddings from unlabeled classroom audio.
Standard SSL assumption; no analysis shows the learned embeddings are speaker-specific rather than channel or session-specific (Section 2.3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Speaker Verification Under Real Classroom Conditions for English Speech." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XCA34EJB

@misc{pith2026260803623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Speaker Verification Under Real Classroom Conditions for English Speech},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XCA34EJB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03623}
}

read the original abstract

Developing speaker verification (SV) models that are robust to classroom noise and effective across both children and adult speakers is critical for AI tools supporting educational environments. In this study, we use a real-world English-speaking classrooms dataset containing partial speaker identity annotations, with most recordings remaining unlabeled. We adapt the WavLM-TDNN model for classroom SV, achieving average relative reductions in Equal Error Rate (EER) of 23.99% and 6.32% compared to the ECAPA-TDNN baseline and the ECAPA-TDNN model trained on classroom data, respectively. Additionally, we investigate two training strategies for SV in classroom settings: self-supervised learning (SSL) and a two-stage approach that first pre-trains with SSL and then fine-tunes with limited annotated data. Five-fold cross-validation demonstrates that the two-stage strategy consistently outperforms the SSL-only approach, achieving an average relative EER reduction of 13.39%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03623 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Proposed WavLM-TDNN model architecture. LSSL = 1 N XN i=1 − log exp xqi · x + ki /τ PK j=0 exp xqi · xki,j /τ (2) where xqi denotes a query sample (i.e., anchor) and x + ki is its corresponding positive key. The negative keys x − ki,j are encoded by the key (momentum) encoder. In Equation 2, the sum is over one positive pair and K negative pairs, with τ = 0.07 as the temperature hyperparameter. To increase the … view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

[5]

Self-supervised speaker verification with relational mask predic- tion,

J.-h. Kim, H.-S. Heo, B.-J. Lee, Y . Kwon, M. Lee, and H.-J. Yu, “Self-supervised speaker verification with relational mask predic- tion,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 2655–2659

2024
[1]

Introduction Robust speaker verification (SV) systems for classroom envi- ronments are essential for enabling intelligent educational tech- nologies that facilitate the monitoring of students participation and teacher–student interactions. However, most existing SV research has focused primarily on adult speech [1–4], with com- paratively limited attentio...

arXiv 2026
[2]

Dataset description We used an in-house multi-modal classrooms dataset, referred to as the EDSI dataset

Methodology 2.1. Dataset description We used an in-house multi-modal classrooms dataset, referred to as the EDSI dataset. EDSI consists of audio and video record- ings from 6th to 8th grade mathematics classrooms, along with relevant student information such as demographic information, student achievement data, seating charts, and psychometric data collec...

arXiv
[3]

Results and discussion 3.1. Comparison of the training methods for the WavLM- TDNN Table 1 compares the SSL and two-stage training strategies ap- plied to the WavLM-TDNN model across five folds, evaluated using EER. The two-stage approach consistently outperforms the SSL-only method across all five folds, achieving an average relative reduction of 13.39% ...
[4]

Conclusions and future work In this study, we investigate speaker verification (SV) in real English-speaking classroom settings, which include both chil- dren and adults and challenging acoustic conditions such as babble noise during group discussions. We demonstrate the ef- fectiveness of a two-stage training strategy for SV , in which the model is first...
[6]

Disentangling speaker and content in pre-trained speech models with latent diffusion for robust speaker verification,

Z. Li, M.-W. Mak, J.-T. Chien, M. Pilanci, Z. Jin, and H. Meng, “Disentangling speaker and content in pre-trained speech models with latent diffusion for robust speaker verification,” inProc. In- terspeech, 2025, pp. 1108–1112

2025
[7]

Idir: Identifying and distilling informative relations for speaker verification,

C.-X. Gan, Z. Li, Z. Jin, Z. Huang, M.-W. Mak, and K. A. Lee, “Idir: Identifying and distilling informative relations for speaker verification,” inProc. Interspeech 2025, 2025, pp. 5758–5762

2025
[8]

Noise-robust speaker verifica- tion with attenuated speech restoration and consistency training,

S. Han, Y . Ahn, and J. W. Shin, “Noise-robust speaker verifica- tion with attenuated speech restoration and consistency training,” IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing, 2025

2025

Show all 31 references

[9]

FT-Boosted SV: To- wards Noise Robust Speaker Verification for English Speaking Classroom Environments ,

S. Tabatabaee, J. Liu, and C. Espy-Wilson, “FT-Boosted SV: To- wards Noise Robust Speaker Verification for English Speaking Classroom Environments ,” inInterspeech 2025, 2025, pp. 2815– 2819

2025
[10]

Nresnet: nested residual network based on channel and frequency domain attention mechanism for speaker verification in classroom,

Q. Zheng, Z. Chen, X. Jiang, M. Lin, M. Wang, and Y .-L. Lu, “Nresnet: nested residual network based on channel and frequency domain attention mechanism for speaker verification in classroom,”Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticsch...

2024
[11]

Automatic speaker verification system substantiating children’s dialects in school settings,

V . Kadyan, P. Bawa, R. Choudhary, and B. Dua, “Automatic speaker verification system substantiating children’s dialects in school settings,”2022 Seventh International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Grid Computing (PDGC), pp. 744– 748, 2022. [Online]. Available: https...

2022
[12]

Momentum con- trast for unsupervised visual representation learning,

K. He, H. Fan, Y . Wu, S. Xie, and R. Girshick, “Momentum con- trast for unsupervised visual representation learning,” inProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 9729–9738

2020
[13]

Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers,

M. Caron, H. Touvron, I. Misra, H. J ´egou, J. Mairal, P. Bo- janowski, and A. Joulin, “Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF interna- tional conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 9650–9660

2021
[14]

Self-supervised learning with cluster-aware-dino for high-performance robust speaker verifica- tion,

B. Han, Z. Chen, and Y . Qian, “Self-supervised learning with cluster-aware-dino for high-performance robust speaker verifica- tion,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 32, pp. 529–541, 2023

2023
[15]

Contrastive self-supervised speaker embedding with sequential disentanglement,

Y . Tu, M.-W. Mak, and J.-T. Chien, “Contrastive self-supervised speaker embedding with sequential disentanglement,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 32, pp. 2704–2715, 2024

2024
[16]

On the duality between contrastive and non-contrastive self-supervised learning,

Q. Garrido, Y . Chen, A. Bardes, L. Najman, and Y . Lecun, “On the duality between contrastive and non-contrastive self-supervised learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02574, 2022

2022 arXiv
[17]

Front-end factor analysis for speaker verification,

N. Dehak, P. J. Kenny, R. Dehak, P. Dumouchel, and P. Ouellet, “Front-end factor analysis for speaker verification,”IEEE Trans- actions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 788–798, 2010

2010
[18]

X-vectors: Robust dnn embeddings for speaker recognition,

D. Snyder, D. Garcia-Romero, G. Sell, D. Povey, and S. Khudan- pur, “X-vectors: Robust dnn embeddings for speaker recognition,” in2018 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2018, pp. 5329–5333

2018
[19]

Ecapa- tdnn: Emphasized channel attention, propagation and ag- gregation in tdnn based speaker verification,

B. Desplanques, J. Thienpondt, and K. Demuynck, “Ecapa- tdnn: Emphasized channel attention, propagation and ag- gregation in tdnn based speaker verification,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07143, 2020

2005 arXiv
[20]

wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,

A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 12 449–12 460, 2020

2020
[21]

Hubert: Self-supervised speech represen- tation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,

W.-N. Hsu, B. Bolte, Y .-H. H. Tsai, K. Lakhotia, R. Salakhutdi- nov, and A. Mohamed, “Hubert: Self-supervised speech represen- tation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,”IEEE/ACM transactions on audio, speech, and language processing, vol. 29, pp. 3451–3460, 2021

2021
[22]

Wavlm: Large-scale self- supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing,

S. Chen, C. Wang, Z. Chen, Y . Wu, S. Liu, Z. Chen, J. Li, N. Kanda, T. Yoshioka, X. Xiaoet al., “Wavlm: Large-scale self- supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1505–1518, 2022

2022
[23]

Large-scale self-supervised speech representation learning for automatic speaker verification,

Z. Chen, S. Chen, Y . Wu, Y . Qian, C. Wang, S. Liu, Y . Qian, and M. Zeng, “Large-scale self-supervised speech representation learning for automatic speaker verification,” inICASSP 2022- 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). I...

2022
[24]

Multi-feature integration for speaker embed- ding extraction,

S. Sankalaet al., “Multi-feature integration for speaker embed- ding extraction,” inICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 7957–7961

2022
[25]

Superb: Speech processing universal performance benchmark,

S.-w. Yang, P.-H. Chi, Y .-S. Chuang, C.-I. J. Lai, K. Lakho- tia, Y . Y . Lin, A. T. Liu, J. Shi, X. Chang, G.-T. Linet al., “Superb: Speech processing universal performance benchmark,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01051, 2021

2021 arXiv
[26]

Robust speaker recognition with transformers using wav2vec 2.0,

S. Novoselov, G. Lavrentyeva, A. Avdeeva, V . V olokhov, and A. Gusev, “Robust speaker recognition with transformers using wav2vec 2.0,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15095, 2022

2022 arXiv
[27]

Layer- aware tdnn: Speaker recognition using multi-layer features from pre-trained models,

J. S. Kim, H. J. Park, W. Shin, J. Yun, and S. W. Han, “Layer- aware tdnn: Speaker recognition using multi-layer features from pre-trained models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07770, 2024

2024
[28]

In- terspeech 2021 deep noise suppression challenge,

C. K. Reddy, H. Dubey, K. Koishida, A. Nair, V . Gopal, R. Cut- ler, S. Braun, H. Gamper, R. Aichner, and S. Srinivasan, “In- terspeech 2021 deep noise suppression challenge,” inINTER- SPEECH, 2021

2021
[29]

My sci- ence tutor (myst)–a large corpus of children’s conver- sational speech,

S. Pradhan, R. A. Cole, and W. H. Ward, “My sci- ence tutor (myst)–a large corpus of children’s conver- sational speech,” inInternational Conference on Lan- guage Resources and Evaluation, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:262458961

2023
[30]

Speechbrain: A general-purpose speech toolkit,

M. Ravanelli, T. Parcollet, P. Plantinga, A. Rouhe, S. Cornell, L. Lugosch, C. Subakan, N. Dawalatabad, A. Heba, J. Zhong et al., “Speechbrain: A general-purpose speech toolkit,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04624, 2021

2021 arXiv
[31]

V oxceleb: Large-scale speaker verification in the wild,

A. Nagrani, J. S. Chung, W. Xie, and A. Zisserman, “V oxceleb: Large-scale speaker verification in the wild,”Computer Speech & Language, vol. 60, p. 101027, 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Self-supervised speaker verification with relational mask predic- tion,

J.-h. Kim, H.-S. Heo, B.-J. Lee, Y . Kwon, M. Lee, and H.-J. Yu, “Self-supervised speaker verification with relational mask predic- tion,” inProc. Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 2655–2659

2024

[2] [1]

Introduction Robust speaker verification (SV) systems for classroom envi- ronments are essential for enabling intelligent educational tech- nologies that facilitate the monitoring of students participation and teacher–student interactions. However, most existing SV research has focused primarily on adult speech [1–4], with com- paratively limited attentio...

arXiv 2026

[3] [2]

Dataset description We used an in-house multi-modal classrooms dataset, referred to as the EDSI dataset

Methodology 2.1. Dataset description We used an in-house multi-modal classrooms dataset, referred to as the EDSI dataset. EDSI consists of audio and video record- ings from 6th to 8th grade mathematics classrooms, along with relevant student information such as demographic information, student achievement data, seating charts, and psychometric data collec...

arXiv

[4] [3]

Results and discussion 3.1. Comparison of the training methods for the WavLM- TDNN Table 1 compares the SSL and two-stage training strategies ap- plied to the WavLM-TDNN model across five folds, evaluated using EER. The two-stage approach consistently outperforms the SSL-only method across all five folds, achieving an average relative reduction of 13.39% ...

[5] [4]

Conclusions and future work In this study, we investigate speaker verification (SV) in real English-speaking classroom settings, which include both chil- dren and adults and challenging acoustic conditions such as babble noise during group discussions. We demonstrate the ef- fectiveness of a two-stage training strategy for SV , in which the model is first...

[6] [6]

Disentangling speaker and content in pre-trained speech models with latent diffusion for robust speaker verification,

Z. Li, M.-W. Mak, J.-T. Chien, M. Pilanci, Z. Jin, and H. Meng, “Disentangling speaker and content in pre-trained speech models with latent diffusion for robust speaker verification,” inProc. In- terspeech, 2025, pp. 1108–1112

2025

[7] [7]

Idir: Identifying and distilling informative relations for speaker verification,

C.-X. Gan, Z. Li, Z. Jin, Z. Huang, M.-W. Mak, and K. A. Lee, “Idir: Identifying and distilling informative relations for speaker verification,” inProc. Interspeech 2025, 2025, pp. 5758–5762

2025

[8] [8]

Noise-robust speaker verifica- tion with attenuated speech restoration and consistency training,

S. Han, Y . Ahn, and J. W. Shin, “Noise-robust speaker verifica- tion with attenuated speech restoration and consistency training,” IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing, 2025

2025