The effect of sampling variability on overall performance and individual speakers’ behaviour in likelihood ratio-based forensic voice comparison

Authors

  • Bruce Xiao Wang The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.23731

Keywords:

forensic voice comparison, likelihood ratio, sampling variability, uncertainty

References

Brümmer, N. (2013) Tutorial for Bayesian forensic likelihood ratio. ArXiv:1304.3589 [Stat]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3589

Brümmer, N., Burget, L., Cernocky, J., Glembek, O., Grezl, F., Karafiat, M., van Leeuwen, D. A., Matejka, P., Schwarz, P. and Strasheim, A. (2007) Fusion of heterogeneous speaker recognition systems in the STBU submission for the NIST Speaker Recognition Evaluation 2006. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 15(7): 2072–2084. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2007.902870

Hughes, V. and Foulkes, P. (2015) The relevant population in forensic voice comparison: Effects of varying delimitations of social class and age. Speech Communication 66: 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2014.10.006

Hughes, V. and Wang, X. B. (2022) Crises of uncertainty, reproducibility and replicability in forensic comparison. Poster presentation at European Academy of Forensic Science Conference (EAFS). Stockholm, Sweden. 30 May–3 June.

Morrison, G. S. (2013) Tutorial on logistic-regression calibration and fusion: Converting a score to a likelihood ratio. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 45(2): 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2012.733025

Morrison, G., Enzinger, E., Hughes, V., Jessen, M., Meuwly, D., Neumann, C., Planting, S., Thompson, W. C., van der Vloed, D. J. F., Ypma, R. and Zhang, C. (2021) Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison. Science & Justice 61(3): 229–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.02.002

Morrison, G. S., Ochoa, F. and Thiruvaran, T. (2012) Database selection for forensic voice comparison. The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop, 62–77.

Morrison, G. and Poh, N. (2018) Avoiding overstating the strength of forensic evidence: Shrunk likelihood ratios/Bayes factors. Science & Justice 58(3): 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.12.005

Rose, P. (2013) More is better: Likelihood ratio-based forensic voice comparison with vocalic segmental cepstra frontends. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 20(1): 77–116. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v20i1.77

Vergeer, P., van Es, A., de Jongh, A., Alberink, I. and Stoel, R. (2016) Numerical likelihood ratios outputted by LR systems are often based on extrapolation: When to stop extrapolating? Science & Justice 56(6): 482–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.06.003

Published

2022-11-03

How to Cite

Wang, B. X. (2022). The effect of sampling variability on overall performance and individual speakers’ behaviour in likelihood ratio-based forensic voice comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 29(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.23731

Issue

Section

Thesis Abstracts