Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repo.lib.jfn.ac.lk/ujrr/handle/123456789/2101
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorThiruvaran, T.
dc.contributor.authorAmbikairajah, E.
dc.contributor.authorEpps, J.
dc.contributor.authorEnzinger, E.
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-19T04:57:53Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-27T10:02:33Z-
dc.date.available2021-03-19T04:57:53Z
dc.date.available2022-06-27T10:02:33Z-
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationThiruvaran, T., Ambikairajah, E., Epps, J., & Enzinger, E. (2013, December). A comparison of single-stage and two-stage modelling approaches for automatic forensic speaker recognition. In 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems (pp. 433-438). IEEE.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://repo.lib.jfn.ac.lk/ujrr/handle/123456789/2101-
dc.description.abstractIn automatic forensic speaker recognition research two frameworks, namely single-stage and two-stage modelling, are used. Although both have their own strengths and limitations, performance is an important attribute that needs to be considered when selecting these methods for forensic research. This paper compares a calibrated single-stage system with a calibrated two-stage system using a common database in terms of different performance metrics. Neither of the systems provides a consistent advantage over the other in terms of all performance measures, raising the question of whether the use of a two-stage system, which requires additional data and effort, is warranted.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherIEEEen_US
dc.titleA Comparison of Single-Stage and Two-Stage Modelling Approaches for Automatic Forensic Speaker Recognitionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:Electrical & Electronic Engineering

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
A Comparison of Single-Stage and Two-Stage.pdf294.81 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.