PhiNet: Speaker Verification with Phonetic Interpretability
Authors: Yi Ma, Shuai Wang, Tianchi Liu, Haizhou Li
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, 119077, Singapore · School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Nanjing University, Suzhou, 215163, China · Shenzhen Loop Area Institute, Shenzhen, China · LIGHTSPEED, 068897, Singapore · School of Artificial Intelligence, Shenzhen Research Institute of Big Data, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518172, China
Despite remarkable progress, automatic speaker verification (ASV) systems typically lack the transparency required for high-accountability applications. Motivated by how human experts perform forensic speaker comparison (FSC), we propose a speaker verification network with phonetic interpretability, PhiNet, designed to enhance both local and global interpretability by leveraging phonetic evidence in decision-making. For users, PhiNet provides detailed phonetic-level comparisons that enable manual inspection of speaker-specific features and facilitate a more critical evaluation of verification outcomes. For developers, it offers explicit reasoning behind verification decisions, simplifying error tracing and informing hyperparameter selection. In our experiments, we demonstrate PhiNet's interpretability with practical examples, including its application in analyzing the impact of different hyperparameters. We conduct both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the proposed interpretability methods and assess speaker verification performance across multiple benchmark datasets, including VoxCeleb, SITW, and LibriSpeech. Results show that PhiNet achieves performance comparable to traditional black-box ASV models while offering meaningful, interpretable explanations for its decisions, bridging the gap between ASV and forensic analysis.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Block diagram of the proposed framework for speaker verification with phonetic interpretability.
Fig. 2: Block diagram of the phonetic trait extractor.
Fig. 3: Illustration of two conditions of adjusting phonetic scores based on phoneme distinctiveness. The top figure shows the adjustment when the phonetic score is closer to a , while the bottom figure depicts the adjustment when the score is closer to b . Here, a and b represent the scores for completely different speakers and the same speaker, respectively.
Fig. 4: Visualization of the decision making process for a non-target trial (top) and a target trial (bottom). Phonetic boundary are marked by dotted lines in enrollment and test utterances. “Er. Seg” and “Te. Seg” show the segments within each phoneme in enrollment and test utterance. The results shown are obtained using the model trained under System (10) in Table II .
Fig. 5: Phonetic weight distribution across different phonemes. The results shown are obtained using the model trained under System (10) in Table II .
Dur
Whole Utt.
5s
2s
EER
minDCF
EER
minDCF
EER
minDCF
1s
8.411
0.556
8.818
0.594
12.547
0.811
2s
5.946
0.447
6.204
0.501
10.973
0.750
3s
5.673
0.439
6.053
0.479
12.047
0.790
4s
6.364
0.440
6.622
0.516
15.216
0.851
5s
6.563
0.457
7.029
0.514
19.248
0.857
TABLE I: Speaker verification performance between models trained on samples of different durations. The systems are trained under System (4), (6), (10), (12) and (14) in Table II , and evaluated on Vox1-O with the whole test sample (“Whole Utt”), the first 5 seconds (“5s”), and the first 2 seconds (“2s”). “Mix” indicates that the training duration in each mini-batch is randomly selected from 1 to 5 seconds
Fig. 6: The phonetic weight for models trained with various duration. The configuration of these models are same with System (4), (6), (10), (12) and (14) in Table II respectively.
Fig. 7: Results of leave- i th-phoneme-out experiments on SITW-eval, Vox1-O and LibriSpeech. Leave- i th-phoneme-out experiments conducted in input spectrogram are shown as “spec-sitw-eval”, “spec-vox1-O” and “spec-libriSpeech”. Correspondingly, “trait” means the phonetic trait of each phoneme is left out and ‘baseline’ shows the EER of the network without leaving anything out.
Fig. 8: Similarity heatmaps between the individual phonetic traits and the centric of each phonetic traits for two speakers in the test set. The results are obtained using the model trained under System (10) in Table II . The phoneme order in the heatmaps (top-to-bottom and left-to-right) follows the same order as in Fig 5 . Brighter points indicate higher cosine similarity.
Model
Idx
Dur
α
β
Vox1-O
EER( % )
minDCF
Fidelity ↓
ECAPA
(1)
2s
-
-
3.403
0.272
-
-TDNN
(2)
3s
-
-
3.541
0.279
-
PhiNet
(3)
1s
0
0
8.366
0.549
0.048
(4)
1s
0.001
0.0015
8.411
0.556
0.053
(5)
2s
0
0
6.244
0.442
0.068
TABLE II: Performance in a comparative study between hyper-parameters used in network training. The fidelity score quantifies the alignment between phonetic trait-based and spectrogram-based leave-one-out setting. Lower values indicate better faithfulness. All the networks are trained on VoxCeleb1. “Dur” represents the duration of seconds of training sample. “ α ” and “ β ” represent the weights assigned to different components in the loss function. The bolded values indicate the optimal configurations.
Dur
α
β
Vox1-O
EER( % )
minDCF
Fidelity ↓
3s
0.001
0.0015
5.673
0.439
0.081
0.0012
0.0017
5.689
0.435
0.084
0.0015
0.002
6.244
0.459
0.076
5s
0.001
0.0015
6.563
0.457
0.113
0.0012
0.0017
6.465
0.462
0.129
TABLE III: Impact of different the weight of α and β on model performance during training.
c
Vox1-O
EER( % )
minDCF
Fidelity ↓
1
5.808
0.448
0.108
2
5.673
0.439
0.081
3
5.585
0.417
0.095
4
5.955
0.448
0.057
TABLE IV: Performance evaluation of models trained with different dimension of mapping vector. c is the dimension of the mapping vector in eq. 2 .
Loss
K
Aug
Vox1-O
EER( % )
minDCF
Fidelity ↓
Lveri
32
✓
6.100
0.445
0.083
32
×
6.571
0.483
0.100
64
✓
5.840
0.430
0.096
64
×
6.747
0.486
0.147
128
✓
5.920
0.436
0.110
TABLE V: Impact of data augmentation on model performance during training.
Function
Vox1-O
EER( % )
minDCF
Fidelity ↓
Min-Max
5.673
0.439
0.081
Sigmoid
5.981
0.444
0.092
Min-Shift
5.705
0.433
0.097
ReLU
5.967
0.458
0.096
TABLE VI: Performance evaluation of models trained with different function to generate phonetic weights.
System
Dur
Params
Training
Vox1-O
Vox1-E
Vox1-H
SITW-eval
LibriSpeech
(Million)
Data
EER
Fidelity
EER
Fidelity
EER
Fidelity
EER
Fidelity
EER
Fidelity
ECAPA-TDNN (Pre-trained)
2s
6.19
Vox2
1.223
-
1.387
-
2.567
-
2.352
-
0.696
-
ECAPA-TDNN (Reproduced)
2s
5.40
Vox1
3.403
-
-
-
-
-
4.893
-
2.061
-
3s
Vox1
3.541
-
-
-
-
-
4.547
-
2.280
-
2s
Vox2
2.648
-
2.794
-
5.474
-
3.318
-
1.685
-
PhiNet
3s
4.81
Vox1
5.673
0.081
-
-
-
-
6.944
0.079
3.518
0.060
TABLE VII: Performance of networks evaluated on the Vox1-O/E/H, SITW and LibriSpeech. The system is trained on training set of VoxCeleb1 (‘Vox1’) and training set of VoxCeleb2 (“Vox2”). “Pre-trained” refers to the pre-trained ECAPA-TDNN baseline released from WeSpeaker, while “Reproduced” denotes the ECAPA-TDNN trained with same strategy as our model.
Deep neural network-based automatic speaker verification (ASV) systems achieve impressive performance but their embedding representations remain opaque, lacking a structured and perceptually verifiable explanation of the vocal characteristics they encode. Existing approaches either require annotation of speaker attributes or introduce alternative representations whose interpretability is unvalidated with listeners. We propose Listenable Interpretable Speaker Embeddings (LISE), a label-free framework that decomposes pretrained speaker embeddings into a small set of components. This decomposition yields a structured representation that supports the analysis of what information has been encoded by speaker embeddings. LISE preserves ASV performance with negligible EER degradation on x-vector and ECAPA-TDNN. Crucially, the interpretability of these components for human listeners is demonstrated through listening experiments, where participants distinguished speakers with 83.9% accuracy.
Xiaoliang Wu, Chongxin Gan, Ke Liu +2
University of Southampton, United Kingdom · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China · University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Spoofing-robust automatic speaker verification (SASV) aims to integrate automatic speaker verification (ASV) and countermeasure (CM). A popular solution is fusion of independent ASV and CM scores. To better modeling SASV, some frameworks integrate ASV and CM within a single network. However, these solutions are typically bi-encoder based, offer limited interpretability, and cannot be readily adapted to new evaluation parameters without retraining. Based on this, we propose a unified end-to-end framework via a three-class formulation that enables log-likelihood ratio (LLR) inference from class logits for a more interpretable decision pipeline. Experiments show comparable performance to existing methods on ASVSpoof5 and better results on SpoofCeleb. The visualization and analysis also prove that the three-class reformulation provides more interpretability.
Kai Tan, Lin Zhang, Ruiteng Zhang +6
HLTCOE & 2 CLSP, Johns Hopkins University, USA · Tianjin University, China
Speaker verification systems achieve high accuracy but provide little account of the acoustic evidence behind their judgments. Making these systems inspectable requires exposing interpretable evidence while retaining the richer information on which their decisions depend. We present CoLMbo-SV, a speaker language model that combines strong speaker discrimination with structured, acoustically grounded comparison reports. By connecting a pretrained speaker encoder to a language model and supplying explicit acoustic measurements, CoLMbo-SV makes voice comparisons inspectable without restricting verification to the evidence verbalized in its reports. We additionally introduce VoxReason, paired recordings with measured acoustic properties and comparison reports filtered through numerical and qualitative checks, providing supervision for this combined capability. We also develop an evaluation framework that separates what acoustic information a speaker representation encodes, what influences the verification score, and what the generated report discusses. On VoxCeleb1-O, CoLMbo-SV achieves 0.99% EER, reducing verification error by approximately 80% relative to the strongest audio-language baseline fine-tuned on VoxReason, while attaining a numerical-grounding score of 0.82. Our analysis further demonstrates that acoustic correctness and decision relevance are distinct properties of an explanation, exposing a gap that numerical-grounding metrics miss. Together, these contributions substantially advance audio-language speaker verification, bring its accuracy toward that of dedicated speaker encoders while adding checkable acoustic reporting, and establish an empirical framework for connecting natural-language explanations to the decisions they explain.