Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Remarks on the verification result

From: "Daniel Burnett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:47:07 -0700

Responses embedded below.

-- dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Reifenrath, Klaus
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 6:35 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [Speechsc] Remarks on the verification result

Verification result (see §11.5):

SV/SI is not the primary focus of NLSML or EMMA. Therefore the result format
needs to be defined in more detail. Especially the grammar attribute (see
example on page 101) needs some explanation, because in SV/SI no grammars
are involved. Also the incremental and cumulative elements need to be
defined.

DB>> Agreed.  There needs to be an XML DTD and/or Schema to better define the results.  The current plan is to make these elements available via a special MRCP namespace rather than changing NLSML/EMMA itself.

Num-frames seems to be very vendor specific. What if a vendor does not have
a 10ms frame rate? The intent of this parameter is not clear - i.e., if it's
intended to denote the amount of speech data (such as to make sure the
utterance is not too short for reliable verification) - then, the result
here should be a measurement in units of time (not frames).

DB>> This is a tricky one.  While a vender might not use 10ms frames, I believe it is the most common value today.  I think we actually discussed this in a face-to-face meeting and decided at the time that a 10ms frame size was fine.  Maybe we should discuss this one?

SV/SI engines that do not support gender or device detection cannot return a
meaningful value for 'matched'. Is this the reason why it is missing in all
examples? I suggest to remove it from the spec.

DB>> Agreed.  It should be removed from the spec.

The spec should specify the range for verification-score and score: -1.0 -
1.0 (negative scores are recommended for failing, positive scores are
recommended for passing, size of number indicates confidence)

DB>> It seems that only one confidence value is needed -- the confidence that the person is who they claim to be.  We could then just use a range of 0 to 1.  However, we should make it clear in the spec that although the range is 0 to 1 it's not guaranteed to be a probability.

Regards,
Klaus

_______________________________________________
Speechsc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc

_______________________________________________
Speechsc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc