<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>recognition system</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Donato Impedovo</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Annalisa Longo</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Tonino Palmisano</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Lucia Sarcinella</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Davide</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Digital Innovation srl, Via E. Orabona n.4 (c/o Department of Computer Science)</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>70125, Bari, IT</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>ITASEC'22: Italian Conference on Cybersecurity</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Mimicry Attacks</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Voice Recognition, Speaker Recognition, Voice</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3">
          <label>3</label>
          <institution>University of Bari Aldo Moro - Department of Computer Science</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Via E. Orabona n.4,70125, Bari, IT</addr-line>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Voice mimicry is the act in which imitators reproduce the vocal characteristics of another person. It can be considered to be an attack to a speaker recognition system. This work evaluates a speaker identification system under mimicry attacks: the goal is to point out how the accuracy of the system changes depending on the various real scenarios could occur. For this purpose, a GMM-UBM model and an I-Vector have been implemented and tested over dataset of Italian language imitations. Tests have been performed different audio lengths and different use cases. Use cases also take into consideration some possible countermeasures.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Voice has always been one of the most widely used biometrics as a distinctive and measurable
feature for the recognition of users in terms of biometric security [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. The study of speaker recognition
focuses more on who is speaking than on what is said, and it can be categorized into two
macrocategories, speaker identification and speaker verification. In the first case, the goal is to establish the
identity of the speaker; in this case, the system performs a 1:N match between the sample under analysis
and all the known models (i.e. users) and then determines which of these is the most similar through
the issuance of a score . In the second case, the task is focused on verifying, precisely, if the speaker is
whom he/she claims to be, so the system performs a 1:1 match between the sample and the declared
model and, depending on whether the score exceeds a certain threshold, the system will issue a boolean
value [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. A further distinction is between text- dependent and text-independent systems. The first case
adopts the same text/sentence during testing and training [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ], the second refers to a process in which
there is no constraint on the text to be pronounced [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        An important topic that is crucial in these years is about the security of the biometric systems, indeed
these systems can be prone to various attacks [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. In the case of speaker verification/identification
systems, replay attacks, speech synthesis, voice conversion and mimicry can be considered [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. Mimicry
is probably the simplest and most common approaches that consists in imitating the voice of another
person to attack the system. The attacker tries to imitate the timbre and prosody of the voice without
the use of special technologies [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. This problem has several implications and can occur in many
different situations. In fact, it is also connected to the phenomenon of scam and cyberbullying. In most
cases a malicious/bully can imitate the victim’s voice with the aim to obtain information from
unsuspecting people or to mock the imitated person by means of vocal recordings/calls. A speaker
recognition system could potentially contribute to identify these actions in multiple scenarios.
ORCID: XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (A. 1); XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (A. 2); XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (A. 3)
      </p>
      <p>2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors.</p>
      <p>This work is focused on the task of speaker identification with a text-independent approach. More
specifically, this study focuses on voice mimicry attacks to analyze the vulnerability of speaker
identification systems, depending on the various scenarios that may arise, whether it is under attack or
not.</p>
      <p>The main contributions of this study are:
• Identify and test a set or reals attack scenarios and possible countermeasures.
• Compare two state-of-the-art speaker identification systems: a Gaussian Mixture Model
Universal Background Model (GMM-UBM) recognizer and an I-vector recognizer.
• The creation of an Italian language Imitation dataset for the aim of the study.</p>
      <p>The paper is divided into the following sections. The section 2 describes the previous
state-of-theart research in the field of speaker identification and mimicry attacks. The section 3 describes the
methods and the approach used in this work. The section 4 explains the dataset and the experiments that
have been performed and finally in the section 5 and 6 will be discussed the result obtained during the
testing phase and the conclusion.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. Related Work</title>
      <p>
        The amount of related works is not extensive highlighting that this is a relevant emerging topic. Yee
Wah Lau et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] have experimented a simple mimicry attack on a speaker recognition system to assess
its vulnerability: they conclude that if the voice of the impostors is remarkably similar to the voice of
the targets speaker the authentication fails. This research has also shown that repeated attempts by an
impostor to mimic a target speaker's voice can allow him to obtain a voice much more similar to the
target and contribute to the degraded performance.
      </p>
      <p>
        More recent studies have focused on two widely used speaker recognition systems, one based on a
Gaussian Mixture Model - Universal Background Model (GMM-UBM) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] and the other on an I-Vector
classifier [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. Hautamäki et al. have involved professional imitators in this experiment and the most
important aspect for this work is that all the study has been done on a Finnish Language Imitations
Dataset created by the authors. They compare the performance of two state-of-the-art systems, a
GMMUBM recognizer and an I-Vector recognizer, testing both the systems, first on genuine voice, as baseline
and then on mimicked voice. The result obtained showed that the professional impersonator didn’t
degrade the performance of the system tested, however there was only a slightly increase of the false
acceptance rate for the I-vector system compared to the GMM-UBM [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Other interesting research, [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] compared the performance of three different systems GMM-UBM,
an I-Vector with cosine similarity and an I-Vector with a probabilistic linear discriminant analysis
(PLDA), under mimicry attack. Similar to the previous work it has been used a Finnish language dataset
of imitators and imitations acquired from non-expert human listener. The study has showed that the
GMM-UBM slightly increased the EER under mimicry attacks, but the other two systems based on the
I-vector increased for two times the EER.
      </p>
      <p>
        Vestman et al. proposed another type of work based on impersonation slightly different from the
previous. They used a two ASV system one publicly available based on I-vector and PLDA, and one
closed source ASV system based on x-Vector. The aim of this research is to perform a similarity search,
in a speech corpus, between recruited attackers and potential target speaker with the first ASV system,
then test the impersonators and the most similar voice to target speaker, founded by the first system, on
the second ASV system. The research highlights the impersonators don’t affect the performance of the
ASV system, but an ASV system that attacks another ASV system can be potentially dangerous [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ].
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. Methods</title>
      <p>on the I-Vector model.</p>
      <p>In this work two systems have been tested. The first is based on GMM-UBM models and the second
Gaussian Mixture Model – Universal Background Model</p>
      <p>
        Systems based on Gaussian Mixture Model – Universal Background Model are widely used in the
field of speaker recognition due to their easily implementation, the low computational cost compared
to the other technics, and the excellent result that can be achieved [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        A Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) is a “parametric probability density function represented as a
weighted sum of Gaussian component densities” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ]. At the basis of the GMM-UBM system there is
the Universal Background Model (UBM), which is a GMM estimated from a large speech dataset. The
purpose of the UBM is to model the general feature space distribution of speech. Then with a Maximum
a Posteriori (MAP) adaptation from the UBM is possible to obtain the target speaker GMM models.
      </p>
      <p>After the generation of the GMM target speaker models the system can recognize “target speaker”
or “ubm” in case of “no target speaker” this because the UBM model can acts like an impostor
hypothesis model.</p>
      <p>
        Finally, the verification score of the system is the log-likelihood ration between the test utterance
generated from the speaker and that generated by the UBM [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>I-Vector</p>
      <p>Another widely used approach is based on the identity vector (I-Vector). At the base of this approach
there is the idea that the MAP adaptation performed only on the mean vectors will result in a
supervector of concatenated means.</p>
      <p>Given m the super-vector of UBM means, T a low-rank matrix that defines the total variability space
and ϕ a standard distribution vector. The super-vector M of the segment GMM can be calculated
adapting the means of the UBM, so M can be written as:

=  +  
(1)</p>
      <p>
        The standard distribution ϕ is used as the extracted i-vector, while the T-matrix is calculated with an
expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm from a development dataset. Usually on the i-vector can be
applied a post-processing algorithm like radial Gaussianization, in this way the i-vector can better
follow the Gaussian assumptions used in the UBM model. Finally for measuring the similarity between
two utterances represented by their corresponding i- vectors can be used the cosine similarity [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        These two systems have been selected because of their large use in many on-the-shelf application
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. However, in both cases, common preliminary common operations are carried out as described in
the following.
3.1.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Pre-Processing and Feature Extraction</title>
      <p>
        The audios have been all converted to .Wav format, re-sampled to 8 kHz and switched from stereo
to mono channel [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. Feature extraction have been performed in 5 different sub-steps.
      </p>
      <p>First, a pre-emphasis filter has been applied to the signal to enhance the high frequencies of the
spectrum, reduced by the speech production process,</p>
      <p>
        The signal have been divided into successive 25-millisecond frames with 10-millisecond
overlaps by frame blocking and hamming windowing. This process is intended to minimize frequency
discontinuity. Since the speech signal varies slowly over time or is a quasi-stationary signal, speech must
be examined over a sufficiently short period [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ],
      </p>
      <p>
        A Voice Activity Detection (VAD) filter have been applied: this allowed the removal of all
superfluous parts (in most cases silence and/or background noise) from the signal, selecting only those
discriminating components and allowing the correct speaker to be identified,
4. A RASTA (Relative Spectral Filtering) filter have been applied to eliminate frequencies that
are different from the normal change in the voice signal, such as frequencies affected by background
noise recorded together with the voice signal,
5. Finally, the MFCC features have been extracted. In detail, for each audio file, a feature vector
composed of 20 MFCC coefficients have been extracted with a filter bank composed of 26 triangular
filters. The choice of using 20 coefficients was made after some considerations: withmore coefficients,
the performance worsens because they would represent rapid changes in signal energy, not
representative of the individual's vocal characteristics. On the other hand, fewer would not have enough
information to represent the voice adequately. In addition, 20 MFCC delta-features were also computed
from the 20 MFCC coefficients for a vector size of40 values. During the feature extraction phase, it
was also chosen to replace the first value of the vector, the cepstral coefficient at position zero, usually
with a null value, with the log of the entire energy component [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ].
3.2.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Training</title>
      <p>Two different approaches have been used for training depending on the specific system.</p>
      <p>Regarding the GMM-UBM, Model Adaptation was chosen adapting a previously pre-trained UBM
of the Italian language to the speaker's feature vector. The adaptation has been performed using the
Maximum a Posteriori (MAP) algorithm, which as the name may suggest, will maximize the a posteriori
probability that, given a recording, the correct speaker is selected. It consists of a first phase in which
the feature vectors are mapped with probabilistic ratios, inserting them into the UBM mixtures, in this
case, 512. Then, the mixtures are adapted using the new data, referring to the "relevance factor ", which
quantifies the new data to be analyzed in a single mixture to balance the contribution made by the latter
to perform the adaptation. Finally, the testing phase is characterized by matching the feature vector
extracted from the system and the model of a speaker, calculating the LLR (Log-Likelihood Ratio).</p>
      <p>Concerning the i-vector system, the UBM model has been used to calculate the Total Variability
Matrix or TV Matrix, which represents a matrix in which the i-vectors will be extracted, then it will use
a function with rank equal to 400 and number of iterations fixed at 20 to realize the actual TV Matrix.
The next step will proceed to obtain the statistics for each type of audio, specifically test or training.
Once the statistics are obtained, it will proceed with the actual extraction of the i-vector for each speaker
and for each test segment, thus obtaining a unique and discriminating model. The resulting
supervectors with reduced dimensions are then the i-vectors, representing the result of the mapping carried
out in the first phases. In the last instance, it will calculate the cosine similarity or the cosine of the
angle between the adjacent vectors that are compared between the vector representing the speaker
enrollment, then the model, and the vector representing the speaker test.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>4. Data and Experiments</title>
      <p>The speech material used in this work consists of 22 Italian celebrities from the world of politics and
entertainment. The audios were extracted from interviews, shows, or performances available on online
platforms. These 22 identities represent the genuine set of users which will be attacked by imitators. In
addition, 17 imitators were chosen and their original voices as well as imitations speech of the 22
genuine users were collected. Finally, there are 24 impersonators representing attacks in the system. As
can be guessed, the "imitation" relationship between famous individuals and imitator is n-to-n since
multiple imitators can imitate each famous individual, and one imitator can imitate multiple famous
individuals. For each speaker, both genuine and impostors, one audio of the duration of 5 minutes have
been extracted, while for the audios of the imitations, their duration varies from 40 seconds to 5 minutes.
22 users</p>
      <sec id="sec-6-1">
        <title>Impostors (with their original voice) 17 users</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-2">
        <title>Impersonation attacks 24 audios</title>
        <p>
          In addition to the dataset created, it has been used another dataset for the UBM model training as
already described in the previous section, in detail is an extensive Italian repository, the Common Voice
Corpus 6.1, consisting of 5729 voices, female, male and uncleared identity (54% male and 14% female
and 23% uncleared identity) at different ages (from 18 to 79 years), 158 hours of speech and about
80.000 files [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>The model has been trained on the 25% of the entire dataset this because the training phase of the
UBM model has taken a large amount of time (more than 10 hours).</p>
        <p>For the testing phase, audio files were chunked into 1-second and 5-seconds files to analyze if and
how, the system behaves by varying the length of the audio.</p>
        <p>Tests have been evaluated in terms of precision, recall, and F1 score.</p>
        <p>Different use cases have been considered as reported in Table 2. Cases 1, 3, 6, and 7 represent
situations in which the system is tested only considering speakers of which it is aware. Cases 2 represent
the situation in which the imitator (unknown to the system) performs a mimicry attack. Case 4 is referred
to the situation in which the imitator is known to the system as a genuine user, but he/she performs a
mimicry attack on another genuine user. Case 5 refers to situations in which the imitator act as a genuine
user as well as an impostor.</p>
        <p>The last two cases are referred to the possibility to add imitation models.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>5. Result and Discussion</title>
      <p>Precision
94,39%
70,87%
92,09%
79,72%
76,90%
97,15%
77,56%
Recall
89,52%
86,69%
86,39%
85,65%
84,70%
87,45%
73,18%</p>
      <sec id="sec-7-1">
        <title>The baseline system</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-2">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system under
mimicry attack</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-3">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system including
imitators which
does not act as
imitators at</p>
        <p>testing</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-4">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system including
imitators under
mimicry attack
The baseline
system including
imitators which
act as imitators
(mimicry attack)
and genuine users
at testing</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-5">
        <title>The system</title>
        <p>explicitly aware of
imitations</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-6">
        <title>The system explicitly aware of imitations under mimicry attack</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-7">
        <title>Test 1s</title>
        <p>F1 Score
91,53%
76,79%
88,37%
80,91%
79,43%
91,78%
77,88%</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-8">
        <title>Results on GMM-UBM approach at 5 second.</title>
        <p>Use case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-9">
        <title>The baseline system</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-10">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system under
mimicry attack</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-11">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system including
imitators which
does not act as
imitators at</p>
        <p>testing</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-12">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system including
imitators under
mimicry attack
The baseline
system including
imitators which
act as imitators
(mimicry attack)
and genuine users
at testing</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-13">
        <title>The system</title>
        <p>explicitly aware of
imitations</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-14">
        <title>The system explicitly aware of imitations under mimicry attack</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-15">
        <title>Test 5s</title>
        <p>F1 Score
99,42%
84,86%
99,37%
88,84%
89,10%
99,53%
88,29%</p>
        <p>Precision
99,70%
80,50%
99,71%
86,48%
85,46%
99,60%
95,65%</p>
        <p>The baseline system under attack shows a performance degradation of 15% in both tests (1s and 5s)
if the impostor is an outsider (use case 2). A performance degradation of 8% is observed if the impostor
is an insider (use case 4 vs use case 3). The situation in which the system is trained on some possible
mimicry attack (use case 5) does not differ significantly in performance from the previous case.</p>
        <p>Considering the tests performed at 1 second and at 5 seconds, it can be seen that the length of the
audio segment affects the performance of the system, in general it can be stated that a wider duration
strongly decreases successful attacks. However, the general performance trend along the different use
cases is independent by the audio duration. The performance worsens considerably (cases 2, 5, 7) when
the system is attacked and does not know speakers or knows only partially imitations (cases 6 and 7) or
imitators (cases 3,4,5).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-16">
        <title>The baseline system</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-17">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system under
mimicry attack</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-18">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system including
imitators which
does not act as
imitators at</p>
        <p>testing</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-19">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system including
imitators under
mimicry attack
The baseline
system including
imitators which
act as imitators
(mimicry attack)
and genuine users
at testing</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-20">
        <title>The system</title>
        <p>explicitly aware of
imitations</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-21">
        <title>The system explicitly aware of imitations under mimicry attack</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-22">
        <title>The baseline system</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-23">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system under
mimicry attack</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-24">
        <title>The baseline</title>
        <p>system including
imitators which
does not act as
imitators at</p>
        <p>testing</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-25">
        <title>The baseline system including</title>
        <p>imitators under
mimicry attack
The baseline
system including
imitators which
act as imitators
(mimicry attack)
and genuine users
at testing</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-7-26">
        <title>The system</title>
        <p>explicitly aware of
imitations</p>
        <p>The system
explicitly aware of
imitations under
mimicry attack
87.08%</p>
        <p>Considering the result achieved with the i-vector system, it can be seen that the baseline system
under attack shows a performance degradation of 30% in 1s test and 25% in 5s test if the impostor is
an outsider (use case 2). A performance degradation of 14% in both tests (1s and 5s) if the impostor is
an insider (use case 4 vs use case 3). The situation in which the system is trained on some possible
mimicry attack (use case 5) does not differ significantly in performance from the previous case.</p>
        <p>Finally, comparing the I-vector results, the same trend obtained in the GMM-UBM model in the
various use cases is also reflected in this model. However, the I-vector system suffer from attacks of a
slightly higher performance degradation.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>6. Conclusion</title>
      <p>In this work, a study of the vulnerability of speaker identification systems against voice mimicry
attacks is presented. The study conducted presents a new Italian mimicking dataset, two very
widespread models are implemented and tested on this dataset: the GMM-UBM, and I-vector.</p>
      <p>The result obtained using the GMM-UBM system show that the baseline system under attack has a
considerable degradation of the performance especially if the system doesn’t know or partially know
the imitators or the imitations. The same trend has be observed for the I-vector system, even if with
slightly increased degradation respect to the GMM-UBM. Comparing the I-vector results, the same
trend obtained in the GMM-UBM model in the various use cases is also reflected in this model.
However, the I-vector system suffer from attacks of a slightly higher performance degradation.</p>
      <p>Performance degradation also depends upon the fact if impostor is another genuine user known by
the system or not.</p>
      <p>Concerning the length of the audio, longer audio files are able to report higher performances then
shorter ones, however, the general performance degradation trend along the different use cases is
independent by the audio duration.</p>
      <p>In future studies, it will be possible to extends this work with other state-of-the-art technics like
artificial neural networks (ANN), extend the Italian mimicry dataset with additional users and compare
the result between GMM-UBM, I-vector and ANN.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>7. Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>This work has been supported by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research within
the PRIN2017 - BullyBuster project - A framework for bullying and cyberbullying action detection by
computer vision and artificial intelligence methods and algorithms.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>8. References</title>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kabir</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mridha</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jahan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ohi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A. Q.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2021</year>
          ).
          <article-title>A Survey of Speaker Recognition: Fundamental Theories, Recognition Methods and Opportunities</article-title>
          .
          <source>IEEE Access (Volume: 9).</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hanifa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Isa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mohamad</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2021</year>
          ).
          <article-title>A review on speaker recognition: Technology and challenges</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computers &amp; Electrical Engineering</source>
          ,
          <volume>90</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>107005</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>El-Moneim</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sedik</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nassar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>El-Fishawy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A. S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sharshar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hassan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>ElSamie</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F. E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2021</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Text-dependent and text-independent speaker recognition of reverberant speech based on CNN</article-title>
          .
          <source>International Journal of Speech Technology.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Torfi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dawson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nasrabadi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Text-Independent Speaker Verification Using 3D Convolutional Neural Networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>2018 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME).</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Impedovo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pirlo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Automatic Signature Verification in the Mobile Cloud Scenario: Survey and Way Ahead</article-title>
          .
          <source>IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Evans</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kinnunen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yamagishi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Alegre</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Spoofing and countermeasures for speaker verification: A survey</article-title>
          .
          <source>Speech Communication</source>
          Volume
          <volume>66</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>130</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>153</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Desai</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K. S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pujara</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Speaker recognition from the mimicked speech: A review</article-title>
          .
          <source>2016 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Signal Processing and Networking (WiSPNET).</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lau</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y. W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wagner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tran</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Vulnerability of speaker verification to voice mimicking</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of 2004 International Symposium on Intelligent Multimedia, Video and Speech Processing.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Saakshar</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pranathi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gomathi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sivasangari</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2020</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Speaker Recognition System using Gaussian Mixture Model</article-title>
          .
          <source>2020 International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP).</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ibrahim</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ramli</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ).
          <article-title>I-vector Extraction for Speaker Recognition Based on Dimensionality Reduction</article-title>
          .
          <source>22nd International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information &amp; Engineering Systems.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hautamäki</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kinnunen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hautamäki</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Laukkanen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.-M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
          <article-title>I-vectors meet imitators: on vulnerability of speaker verification systems against voice mimicry</article-title>
          .
          <source>Interspeech.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hautamaki</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R. G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kinnunen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hautamaki</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Laukkanen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.-M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Automatic versus human speaker verification: The case of voice mimicry</article-title>
          .
          <source>Speech Communication</source>
          <volume>72</volume>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vestman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kinnunen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hautamäki</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R. G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sahidullah</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2020</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Voice mimicry attacks assisted by automatic speaker verification</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computer Speech &amp; Language</source>
          ,
          <volume>59</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>36</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>54</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Li</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jain</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
          <source>Gaussian Mixture Models. Encyclopedia of Biometrics.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Benesty</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sondhi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Huang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Greenberg</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
          <source>Springer Handbook of Speech Processing</source>
          . Springer.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Leu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.-Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.-L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          ).
          <source>An MFCC-Based Speaker Identification System</source>
          .
          <source>2017 IEEE 31st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA).</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mozilla</surname>
          </string-name>
          . (
          <year>2020</year>
          ). Datasets. Retrieved from Mozilla Common Voice: https://commonvoice.mozilla.org/en/datasets
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>