학술논문

Generalizing Speaker Verification for Spoof Awareness in the Embedding Space
Document Type
Periodical
Source
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, IEEE/ACM Transactions on. 32:1261-1273 2024
Subject
Signal Processing and Analysis
Computing and Processing
Communication, Networking and Broadcast Technologies
General Topics for Engineers
Training
Authentication
Task analysis
Optimization
Feature extraction
Multitasking
Electronic mail
Anti-spoofing
ASVspoof
speaker recognition
spoof-aware speaker verification (SASV)
Language
ISSN
2329-9290
2329-9304
Abstract
It is now well-known that automatic speaker verification (ASV) systems can be spoofed using various types of adversaries. The usual approach to counteract ASV systems against such attacks is to develop a separate spoofing countermeasure (CM) module to classify speech input either as a bonafide, or a spoofed utterance. Nevertheless, such a design requires additional computation and utilization efforts at the authentication stage. An alternative strategy involves a single monolithic ASV system designed to handle both zero-effort imposter (non-targets) and spoofing attacks. Such spoof-aware ASV systems have the potential to provide stronger protections and more economic computations. To this end, we propose to generalize the standalone ASV (G-SASV) against spoofing attacks, where we leverage limited training data from CM to enhance a simple backend in the embedding space, without the involvement of a separate CM module during the test (authentication) phase. We propose a novel yet simple backend classifier based on deep neural networks and conduct the study via domain adaptation and multi-task integration of spoof embeddings at the training stage. Experiments are conducted on the ASVspoof 2019 logical access dataset, where we improve the performance of statistical ASV backends on the joint (bonafide and spoofed) and spoofed conditions by a maximum of 36.2% and 49.8% in terms of equal error rates, respectively.