The present invention relates generally to methods, apparatus and software for speech analysis, and particularly to automated diarization of conversations between multiple speakers.
Speaker diarization is the process of partitioning an audio stream containing voice data into time segments according to the identity of the speaker in each segment.
It can be combined with automatic transcription of the audio stream in order to give an accurate rendition of the conversation during a conference, for example.
Speaker diarization is sometimes used in analyzing the sequence of speakers in a video teleconference. For example, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0300939 describes a method that includes receiving a media file that includes video data and audio data; determining an initial scene sequence in the media file; determining an initial speaker sequence in the media file; and updating a selected one of the initial scene sequences and the initial speaker sequence in order to generate an updated scene sequence and an updated speaker sequence respectively.
Embodiments of the present invention that are described hereinbelow provide improved methods, apparatus and software for automated analysis of conversations.
There is therefore provided, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, a method for audio processing, which includes receiving, in a computer, a recording of a teleconference among multiple participants over a network including an audio stream containing speech uttered by the participants and conference metadata for controlling a display on video screens viewed by the participants during the teleconference. The audio stream is processed by the computer to identify speech segments, in which one or more of the participants were speaking, interspersed with intervals of silence in the audio stream. The conference metadata are parsed so as to extract speaker identifications, which are indicative of the participants who spoke during successive periods of the teleconference. The teleconference is diarized by labeling the identified speech segments from the audio stream with the speaker identifications extracted from corresponding periods of the teleconference.
In a disclosed embodiment, processing the audio stream includes applying a voice activity detector to identify as the speech segments parts of the audio stream in which a power of the audio signal exceeds a specified threshold.
Additionally or alternatively, labeling the identified speech segments measuring and compensating for a delay in transmission of the audio stream over the network relative to timestamps associated with the conference metadata.
In some embodiments, diarizing the teleconference includes labeling a first set of the identified speech segments with the speaker identifications extracted from the corresponding periods of the teleconference, extracting acoustic features from the speech segments in the first set, and labeling a second set of the identified speech segments using the extracted acoustic features to indicate the participants who spoke during the speech segments.
In one embodiment, labeling the second set includes labeling one or more of the speech segments for which the conference metadata did not provide a speaker identification. Additionally or alternatively, labeling the second set includes correcting one or more of the speaker identifications of the speech segments in the first set using the extracted audio characteristics.
In a disclosed embodiment, extracting the acoustic features includes building a respective statistical model of the speech of each participant based on the audio stream in the first set of the speech segments that were labeled as belonging to the participant, and labeling the second set includes comparing the statistical model to each of a sequence of time frames in the audio stream.
Additionally or alternatively, labeling the second set includes estimating transition probabilities between the speaker identifications based on the labeled speech segments in the first set, and applying the transition probabilities in labeling the second set of the speech segments. In one embodiment, applying the transition probabilities includes applying a dynamic programming algorithm over a series of time frames in the audio stream in order to identify a likeliest sequence of the participants to have spoken over the series of time frames.
Further additionally or alternatively, diarizing the teleconference includes extracting the acoustic features from the speech segments in the second set, and applying the extracted acoustic features in further refining a segmentation of the audio stream.
In some embodiments, the method includes analyzing speech patterns in the teleconference using the labeled speech segments. Analyzing the speech patterns may include measuring relative durations of speech by the participants and/or measuring a level of interactivity between the participants. Additionally or alternatively, analyzing the speech patterns includes correlating the speech patterns of a group of salespeople over multiple teleconferences with respective sales made by the salespeople in order to identify an optimal speech pattern.
There is also provided, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, apparatus for audio processing, including a memory, which is configured to store a recording of a teleconference among multiple participants over a network including an audio stream containing speech uttered by the participants and conference metadata for controlling a display on video screens viewed by the participants during the teleconference. A processor is configured to process the audio stream so as to identify speech segments, in which one or more of the participants were speaking, interspersed with intervals of silence in the audio stream, to parse the conference metadata so as to extract speaker identifications, which are indicative of the participants who spoke during successive periods of the teleconference, and to diarize the teleconference by labeling the identified speech segments from the audio stream with the speaker identifications extracted from corresponding periods of the teleconference.
There is additionally provided, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, a computer software product, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which program instructions are stored, which instructions, when read by a computer, cause the computer to store a recording of a teleconference among multiple participants over a network including an audio stream containing speech uttered by the participants and conference metadata for controlling a display on video screens viewed by the participants during the teleconference, and to process the audio stream so as to identify speech segments, in which one or more of the participants were speaking, interspersed with intervals of silence in the audio stream, to parse the conference metadata so as to extract speaker identifications, which are indicative of the participants who spoke during successive periods of the teleconference, and to diarize the teleconference by labeling the identified speech segments from the audio stream with the speaker identifications extracted from corresponding periods of the teleconference.
The present invention will be more fully understood from the following detailed description of the embodiments thereof, taken together with the drawings in which:
Methods of automatic speaker diarization that are known in the art tend to achieve only coarse segmentation and labeling of a multi-speaker conversation. In some applications, more accurate diarization is required.
For example, the operator or manager of a call center may wish to use automatic diarization to analyze the conversations held by salespeople with customers in order to understand and improve their sales skills and increase their success rate. In this context, the customer's overall speaking time is usually much smaller than that of the salesperson. On the other hand, detecting the customer's speech segments can be of higher importance in analyzing the conversation, including even short utterances (for example, “OK” or “aha”). Inaccurate diarization can lead to loss or misclassification of important cues like these, and thus decrease the effectiveness of the call analysis.
Some embodiments of the present invention that are described herein address these problems by using cues outside the audio stream itself. These embodiments are directed specifically to analyzing Web-based teleconferences, in which conferencing software transmits images and metadata that enable the participants to view a display on a video screen showing the conference participants and/or other information in conjunction with the audio stream containing speech uttered by the participants. Specifically, standard teleconferencing software applications automatically identify the participant who is speaking during successive periods of the teleconference, and transmit the speaker identification as part of the metadata stream that is transmitted to the participants. In some embodiments, the metadata comprises code in a markup language, such as the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), which is used by client software on the participants' computers in driving the display during the teleconference; but other sorts of metadata may alternatively be used for the present purposes.
In the present embodiments, a diarizing computer receives a recording of the audio stream and corresponding metadata of a Web-based teleconference. The computer processes the audio stream to identify speech segments, in which one or more of the participants were speaking, interspersed with intervals of silence in the audio stream. The computer also parses the conference metadata so as to extract the speaker identifications, and then diarizes the teleconference by labeling the identified speech segments from the audio stream with the speaker identifications extracted from corresponding periods of the teleconference. The metadata is useful in resolving the uncertainty that often arises in determining which participant is speaking at any given time on the basis of the audio stream alone, and thus improves the quality of diarization, as well as the accuracy of transcription and analysis of the teleconference based on the diarization.
In many cases, however, the speaker identification provided by the conference metadata is still not sufficiently “fine-grained,” in the sense that the minimal periods over which a speaker may be identified are long (typically on the order of at least one second). Precise diarization, particularly in short segments, can also be confused by network transmission delays and by segments in which more than one participant was speaking.
Therefore, in some embodiments of the present invention, after labeling a first set of speech segments using the conference metadata, the computer refines the speaker identifications on the basis of acoustic features extracted from the speech segments in this first set. In some embodiments, the computer develops a model, using these acoustic features, which indicates the likeliest speaker in each segment of the conversation, including even very short segments. This model is applied in analyzing and labeling a second set of the identified speech segments, instead of or in addition to the metadata-based labeling. In some cases, the labels of some of the speech segments in the first set, which were based on the metadata, are also corrected using the model.
The results of this fine-grained diarization can be used for various purposes, such as accurate, automatic transcription and analysis of conversation patterns. In one embodiment, the diarization is used in comparing sales calls made by different members of a sales team, in order to identify patterns of conversation that correlate with successful sales. The sales manager can use this information, for example, in coaching the members of the team to improve points in their conversational approach.
The data stream among computers 26, 27, 28, 29, . . . , that is recorded by server 22 includes both an audio stream, containing speech uttered by the participants, and conference metadata. Server 22 may receive audio input from the conversations on line in real time, or it may, additionally or alternatively, receive recordings made and stored by other means. The conference metadata typically has the form of textual code in HTML or another markup language, for controlling the teleconference display on the video screens viewed by the participants. The conference metadata is typically generated by third-party teleconferencing software, separate from and independent of server 22. As one example, server 22 may capture and collect recordings of Web conferences using the methods described in U.S. Pat. No. 9,699,409, whose disclosure is incorporated herein by reference.
Server 22 comprises a processor 36, such as a general-purpose computer processor, which is connected to network 24 by a network interface 34. Server 22 receives and stores a corpus of recorded conversations in memory 38, for processing by processor 36. Processor 36 autonomously diarizes the conversations, and may also transcribe the conversations and/or analyze the patterns of speech by the participants. At the conclusion of this process, processor 36 is able to present the distribution of the segments of the conversations and the respective labeling of the segments according to the participant speaking in each segment over the duration of the recorded conversations on a display 40.
Processor 36 typically carries out the functions that are described herein under the control of program instructions in software. This software may be downloaded to server 22 in electronic form, for example over a network. Additionally or alternatively, the software may be provided and/or stored on tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media, such as optical, magnetic, or electronic memory media.
Reference is now made to
In order to begin the analysis of a conversation, processor 36 captures both an audio stream containing speech uttered by the participants and coarse speaker identity data from the conversation, at a data capture step 50. The speaker identity data has the form of metadata, such as HTML, which is provided by the teleconferencing software and transmitted over network 24. The teleconferencing software may apply various heuristics in deciding on the speaker identity at any point in time, and the actual method that is applied for this purpose is beyond the scope of the present description. The result is that at each of a sequence of points in time during the conversation, the metadata indicates the identity of the participant who is speaking, or may indicate that multiple participants are speaking or that no one is speaking.
To extract the relevant metadata, processor 36 may parse the structure of the Web pages transmitted by the teleconferencing application. It then applies identification rules managed within server 22 to determine which parts of the page indicate speaker identification labels. For example, the identification rules may indicate the location of a table in the HTML hierarchy of the page, and classes or identifiers (IDs) of HTML elements may be used to traverse the HTML tree and determine the area of the page containing the speaker identification labels. Additional rules may indicate the location of specific identification labels. For example, if the relevant area of the page is implemented using an HTML table tag, individual speaker identification labels may be implemented using HTML <tr> tags. In such a case, processor 36 can use the browser interface, and more specifically the document object model application program interface (DOM API), to locate the elements of interest. Alternatively, if the teleconferencing application is a native application, such as a Microsoft Windows® native application, processor 36 may identify the elements in the application using the native API, for example the Windows API.
An extracted metadata stream of this sort is shown, for example, in Table I below:
The speaker identity metadata are shown graphically as a bar plot 52 in
To facilitate labeling of audio segments, processor 36 filters the raw metadata received from the conferencing data stream to remove ambiguities and gaps. For example, the processor may merge adjacent speaker labels and close small gaps between labels.
Returning now to
Processor 36 applies the filtered metadata extracted at step 50 to the voice activity data obtained from step 66 in labeling speech segments 70, at a segment labeling step 72. Speech segments 70 in the audio stream are labeled at step 66 when they can be mapped consistently to exactly one metadata label. (Examples of difficulties that can occur in this process are explained below with reference to
To compensate for this discrepancy, processor 36 may estimate the delay in network transmission between computers 26 and 29, as well as between these computers and server 22. For this purpose, for example, processor 36 may transmit and receive test packets over network 24. Additionally or alternatively, processor 36 may infer the delay by comparing the patterns of segments in bar plots 82 and 84. In the present example, the delay is found to be about 1 sec, and processor 36 therefore matches voice activity segment 86 to metadata segment 90. As a result, bar plot 92 in
Returning again to
To rectify these problems and thus provide finer-grained analysis, processor 36 refines the initial segmentation in order to derive a finer, more reliable segmentation of the audio stream, at a refinement step 96. For this purpose, as noted earlier, processor 36 extracts acoustic features from the speech segments that were labeled at step 72 based on the conference metadata. The processor applies these acoustic features in building a model, which can be optimized to maximize the likelihood that each segment of the conversation will be correctly associated with a single speaker. This model can be used both in labeling the segments that could not be labeled at step 72 (such as segments 78) and in correcting the initial labeling by relabeling, splitting and/or merging the existing segments. Techniques that can be applied in implementing step 96 are described below in greater detail.
Once this refinement of the segment labeling has been completed, processor 36 automatically extracts and analyzes features of the participants' speech during the conference, at an analysis step 98. For example, processor 36 may apply the segmentation in accurately transcribing the conference, so that the full dialog is available in textual form. Additionally or alternatively, processor 36 may analyze the temporal patterns of interaction between the conference participants, without necessarily considering the content of the discussion.
To begin the refinement process, processor 36 defines a set of speaker states, corresponding to the speakers identified by the conference metadata (step 50 in
For each state i∈{0,N}, processor 36 builds a respective statistical model, based on the segments of the audio stream that were labeled previously (for example, at step 72) with specific speaker identities, at a model construction step 104. In other words, each state i is associated with a corresponding participant; and processor 36 uses the features of the audio signals recorded during the segments during which participant i was identified as the speaker in building the statistical model for the corresponding state. Any suitable sort of statistical model that is known in the art may be used for this purpose. In the present embodiment, processor 36 builds a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) for each state, G(x|s=i), i.e., a superposition of Gaussian distributions with K centers, corresponding to the mean values for participant i of the K statistical features extracted at step 102. The covariance matrix of the models may be constrained, for example, diagonal.
The set of speaker states can be expanded to include situations other than silence and a single participant speaking. For example, a “background” or “multi-speaker” state can be added and characterized using all speakers or pairs of speakers, so that the model will be able to recognize and handle two participants talking simultaneously. Time frames dominated by background noises, such as music, typing sounds, and audio event indicators, can also be treated as distinct states.
Based on the labeled segments, processor 36 also builds a matrix of the transition probabilities T(j|i) between the states in the model, meaning the probability that after participant i spoke during time frame t, participant j will be the speaker in time frame t+1:
Here st is the state in frame t, and δ is the Kronecker delta function. The transition matrix will typically be strongly diagonal (meaning that in the large majority of time frames, the speaker will be the same as the speaker in the preceding time frame). The matrix may be biased to favor transitions among speakers using additive smoothing of the off-diagonal elements, such Laplace add-one smoothing.
Processor 36 also uses the state st in each labeled time frame t to estimate the start probability P(j) for each state j by using the marginal observed probability:
Here again, smoothing may be used to bias the probabilities of states with low rates of occurrence.
Using the statistical model developed at step 104 and the probabilities calculated at step 106, processor 36 applies a dynamic programming algorithm in order to find the likeliest sequence of speakers over all of the time frames t=0, 1, . . . , T, at a speaker path computation step 108. For example, processor 36 may apply the Viterbi algorithm at this step, which will give, for each time frame, an identification of the participant likeliest to have spoken in that time frame, along with a measure of confidence in the identification, i.e., a probability value that the speaker state in the given time frame is correct. Before performing the speaker path computation, processor 36 may add chains of internal states to the model, for example by duplicating each speaker state multiple times and concatenating them with a certain transition probability. These added states create an internal Markov chain, which enforces minimal speaker duration and thus suppresses spurious transitions.
As a result of the computation at step 108, time frames in segments of the audio stream that were not labeled previously will now have speaker states associated with them. Furthermore, the likeliest-path computation may assign speaker states to time frames in certain segments of the audio stream that are different from the participant labels that were previously attached to these segments.
Processor 36 uses these new speaker state identifications in refining the segmentation of the audio stream, at a segmentation refinement step 110. To avoid errors at this stage, the processor typically applies a threshold to the speaker state probability values, so that only speaker state identifications having high measures of confidence are used in the resegmentation. Following step 110, some or all of the segments of the conversation that were previously unlabeled may now be assigned labels, indicating the participant who was speaking during each segment or, alternatively, that the segment was silent. Additionally or alternatively, segments or parts of segments that were previously labeled erroneously as belonging to a given participant may be relabeled with the participant who was actually speaking. In some cases, the time borders of the segments may be changed, as well.
In the first iteration through steps 104-110, the speaker identity labels assigned at step 72 (
In the example shown in
Additionally or alternatively, processor 36 may assign different levels of confidence to the metadata-based labels, thereby accounting for potential errors in the metadata-based segmentation. Furthermore, the processor may ignore speech segments with unidentified speech, as the metadata-based labels of these segments might exhibit more errors. Additionally or alternatively, processor 36 may apply a learning process to identify the parts of a conference in which it is likely that the metadata are correct. Following this learning phase of the algorithm, the processor can predict the segmentation of these segments, as in the example shown in
For example, in one embodiment, processor 36 may implement an artificial neural network. This embodiment treats the labeling and segmentation problem as a “sequence-to-sequence” learning problem, where the neural network learns to predict the coarse segmentation using the speech features as its input.
In this embodiment, a network, such as a convolutional neural network (CNN) or a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN, including networks with long short-term memory [LSTM]cells, Gated Recurrent Units (GRU's), Vanilla RNN's or any other implementation), is used to learn the transformation between acoustic features and speakers. The network is trained to predict the metadata labels on a given conversation. After training is completed, the network predicts the speaker classes without knowledge of the metadata labels, and the network output is used as the output of the resegmentation process.
The network learning process can use either a multiclass architecture, multiple binary classifiers with joint embedding, or multiple binary classifiers without joint embedding. In a multiclass architecture, the network predicts one option from a closed set of options (e.g. Speaker A, Speaker B, Speaker A+B, Silence, Unidentified Speaker etc.). In an architecture of multiple binary classifiers, the network provides multiple predictions, one for each possible speaker, predicting whether the speaker talked during the period (including simultaneously predicting whether Speaker A talked, and whether speaker B talked).
In some embodiments of the present invention, server 22 diarizes a large body of calls made by salespeople in a given organization, and outputs the results to a sales manager and/or to the salespeople themselves as an aid in improving their conference behavior. For example, server 22 may measure and output the following parameters, which measure relative durations and timing of speech by the participants (in this case, the salesperson and the customer) in each call:
Processor 36 may correlate the talk times with sales statistics for each of the salespeople, taken from the customer relations management (CRM) database of the organization, for example. On this basis, processor 36 identifies the optimal speech patterns, such as optimal talk time and other parameters, for maximizing the productivity of sales calls. The salespeople can then receive feedback and coaching on their conversational habits that will enable them to increase their sales productivity.
It will be appreciated that the embodiments described above are cited by way of example, and that the present invention is not limited to what has been particularly shown and described hereinabove. Rather, the scope of the present invention includes both combinations and subcombinations of the various features described hereinabove, as well as variations and modifications thereof which would occur to persons skilled in the art upon reading the foregoing description and which are not disclosed in the prior art.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/658,604, filed Apr. 17, 2018, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6185527 | Petkovic et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6324282 | McIllwaine et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6363145 | Shaffer et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6434520 | Kanevsky et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6542602 | Elazar | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6603854 | Judkins et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6721704 | Strubbe et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6724887 | Eilbacher et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6741697 | Benson et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6775377 | McIllwaine et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6914975 | Koehler et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6922466 | Peterson et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6959080 | Dezonno et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6970821 | Shambaugh et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7010106 | Gritzer et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7076427 | Scarano et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7151826 | Shambaugh et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7203285 | Blair | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7281022 | Gruhl et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7305082 | Elazar | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7373608 | Lentz | May 2008 | B2 |
7457404 | Hession et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7460659 | Shambaugh et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7474633 | Halbraich et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
RE40634 | Blair et al. | Feb 2009 | E |
7548539 | Kouretas et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7570755 | Williams et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7577246 | Idan et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7596498 | Basu et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7599475 | Eilam et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7613290 | Williams et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7631046 | Litvin et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7660297 | Fisher et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7664641 | Pettay et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7702532 | Vigil | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7716048 | Pereg et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7728870 | Rudnik et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7739115 | Pettay et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
RE41608 | Blair et al. | Aug 2010 | E |
7769622 | Reid et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7770221 | Frenkel et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7783513 | Lee | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7817795 | Gupta et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7852994 | Blair et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7853006 | Fama et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7869586 | Conway et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7873035 | Kouretas et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7881216 | Blair | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7881471 | Spohrer et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7882212 | Nappier et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7899176 | Calahan et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7899178 | Williams, II et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7904481 | Deka et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7925889 | Blair | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7949552 | Korenblit et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7953219 | Freedman et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7953621 | Fama et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7965828 | Calahan et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7966187 | Pettay et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
7966265 | Schalk et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7991613 | Blair | Aug 2011 | B2 |
7995717 | Conway et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8000465 | Williams et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8005675 | Wasserblat et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8050921 | Mark et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8055503 | Scarano et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8078463 | Wasserblat et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8086462 | Alonso et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8094587 | Halbraich et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8094803 | Danson et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8107613 | Gumbula | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8108237 | Bourne et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8112298 | Bourne et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
RE43255 | Blair et al. | Mar 2012 | E |
RE43324 | Blair et al. | Apr 2012 | E |
8150021 | Geva et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8160233 | Keren et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8165114 | Halbraich et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8180643 | Pettay et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
8189763 | Blair | May 2012 | B2 |
8194848 | Zernik et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8199886 | Calahan et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8199896 | Portman et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8204056 | Dong et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8204884 | Freedman et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8214242 | Agapi et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8219401 | Pettay et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8243888 | Cho | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8255542 | Henson | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8275843 | Anantharaman et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8285833 | Blair | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8290804 | Gong | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8306814 | Dobry et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8326631 | Watson | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8340968 | Gershman | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8345828 | Williams et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8396732 | Nies et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
8411841 | Edwards et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8442033 | Williams et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8467518 | Blair | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8526597 | Geva et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8543393 | Barnish | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8611523 | Conway et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8649499 | Koster et al. | Feb 2014 | B1 |
8670552 | Keren et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8675824 | Barnes et al. | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8706498 | George | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8761376 | Pande et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8718266 | Williams et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8719016 | Ziv et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8724778 | Barnes et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8725518 | Waserblat et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8738374 | Jaroker | May 2014 | B2 |
8787552 | Zhao et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8798254 | Naparstek et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8806455 | Katz | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8861708 | Kopparapu et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8903078 | Blair | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8909590 | Newnham et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8971517 | Keren et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8990238 | Goldfarb | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9020920 | Haggerty et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9025736 | Meng et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
9053750 | Gibbon et al. | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9083799 | Loftus et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9092733 | Sneyders et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9135630 | Goldfarb et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9148511 | Ye et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9160853 | Daddi et al. | Oct 2015 | B1 |
9160854 | Daddi et al. | Oct 2015 | B1 |
9167093 | Geffen et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9197744 | Sittin et al. | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9213978 | Melamed et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9214001 | Rawle | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9232063 | Romano et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9232064 | Skiba et al. | Jan 2016 | B1 |
9253316 | Williams et al. | Feb 2016 | B1 |
9262175 | Lynch et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9269073 | Sammon et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9270826 | Conway et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9300790 | Gainsboro et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9311914 | Wasserbat et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9368116 | Ziv et al. | Jun 2016 | B2 |
9401145 | Ziv et al. | Jul 2016 | B1 |
9401990 | Teitelman et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
9407768 | Conway et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9412362 | Iannone et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9418152 | Nissan et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9420227 | Shires et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9432511 | Conway et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9460394 | Krueger et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9460722 | Sidi et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9497167 | Weintraub et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9503579 | Watson et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9508346 | Achituv et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9589073 | Yishay | Mar 2017 | B2 |
9596349 | Hernandez | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9633650 | Achituv et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9639520 | Yishay | May 2017 | B2 |
9690873 | Yishay | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9699409 | Reshef | Jul 2017 | B1 |
9785701 | Yishay | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9936066 | Mammen et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
9947320 | Lembersky et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
9953048 | Weisman et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
9953650 | Falevsky | Apr 2018 | B1 |
9977830 | Romano et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
10079937 | Nowak et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10134400 | Ziv et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10503719 | Rice et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10503783 | Muniz Navarro et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10504050 | Rogynskyy et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10521443 | Brunets et al. | Dec 2019 | B2 |
10528601 | Rogynskyy et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
10565229 | Rogynskyy et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10599653 | Rogynskyy et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
10649999 | Rogynskyy et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
10657129 | Rogynskyy et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
20040021765 | Kubala | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040024598 | Srivastava et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20070129942 | Ban et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070260564 | Peters et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080300872 | Basu et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090306981 | Cromack et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100104086 | Park | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100211385 | Sehlstedt | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100246799 | Lubowich et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110103572 | Blair | May 2011 | A1 |
20110217021 | Dubin | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20130081056 | Hu et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130300939 | Chou et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20140214402 | Diao et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140220526 | Sylves | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140229471 | Galvin, Jr. et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140278377 | Peters et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20150025887 | Sidi | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150066935 | Peters et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20160014373 | LaFata | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160071520 | Hayakawa | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160110343 | Kumar Rangarajan Sridhar | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160275952 | Kashtan et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160314191 | Markman et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20170270930 | Ozmeral | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170323643 | Arslan | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20180181561 | Raanani | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180239822 | Reshef et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20180254051 | Church | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180307675 | Akkiraju et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180342250 | Cohen et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20190155947 | Chu et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190304470 | Ghaemmaghami | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20200177403 | Vazquez-Rivera | Jun 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
108920644 | Nov 2018 | CN |
2005071666 | Aug 2005 | WO |
2012151716 | Nov 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Makhoul et al. “Speech and Language Technologies for Audio Indexing and Retrieval”. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 88, No. 8, Aug. 2000, pp. 1338-1353 (Year: 2000). |
Anguera., “Speaker Independent Discriminant Feature Extraction for Acoustic Pattern-Matching”, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1-4, Mar. 25-30, 2012. |
Church et al., “Speaker Diarization: A Perspective on Challenges and Opportunities From Theory to Practice”, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 4950-4954, Mar. 5-9, 2017. |
Hieu., “Speaker Diarization in Meetings Domain”, A thesis submitted to the School of Computer Engineering of the Nanyang Technological University, pp. 1-149, Jan. 2015. |
Shum et al., “Unsupervised Methods for Speaker Diarization: An Integrated and Iterative Approach”, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 21, No. 10, pp. 2015-2028, Oct. 2013. |
Serrano, “Speaker Diarization and Tracking in Multiple-Sensor Environments”, Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Universitat Polit{grave over ( )}ecnica de Catalunya, Spain, pp. 1-323, Oct. 2012. |
Friedland et al., “Multi-modal speaker diarization of real-world meetings using compressed-domain video features”, International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP'09), pp. 1-4, Apr. 19-24, 2009. |
Anguera., “Speaker Diarization: A Review of Recent Research”, First draft submitted to IEEE TASLP, pp. 1-15, Aug. 19, 2010. |
Balwani et al., “Speaker Diarization: A Review and Analysis”, International Journal of Integrated Computer Applications & Research (IJICAR), vol. 1, issue 3, pp. 1-5, year 2015. |
Evans et al., “Comparative Study of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches to Speaker Diarization”, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 382-392, Feb. 2012. |
Sasikala et al., “A Survey on Speaker Diarization Approach for Audio and Video Content Retrieval”, International Journal of Research and Computational Technology, vol. 5, issue 4, p. 1-8, Dec. 2013. |
Moattar et al., “A review on speaker diarization systems and approaches”, Speech Communication, vol. 54, No. 10, pp. 1065-1103, year 2012. |
Wang et al., “Speaker Diarization with LSTM, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science”, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Calgary, Canada, pp. 5239-5243, Apr. 15-20, 2018. |
Eisenstein et al., “Bayesian Unsupervised Topic Segmentation”, Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 334-343, Oct. 2008. |
Sherman et al., “Using Hidden Markov Models for Topic Segmentation of Meeting Transcripts”, Proceedings of the IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop 2008, pp. 185-188, year 2008. |
Purver et al., “Unsupervised Topic Modelling for Multi-Party Spoken Discourse”, Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 17-24, Jul. 2006. |
EP Application # 17896398.9 Search Report dated Oct. 27, 2020. |
EP Application # 20184576.5 Search Report dated Dec. 21, 2020. |
Shafiei et al., “A Statistical Model for Topic Segmentation and Clustering,” 21st Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Canadian AI 2008: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 283-295, year 2008. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/520,374 Office Action dated Jun. 10, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/520,374 Office Action dated Dec. 7, 2021. |
EP Application # 17896398.9 Office Action dated Dec. 20, 2021. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20190318743 A1 | Oct 2019 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62658604 | Apr 2018 | US |