Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

ESPnet-SPK: add ASVspoof19 SASV recipe#5687

Merged
sw005320 merged 32 commits intoespnet:masterfrom
Alexgichamba:asvspoof19_spk
Mar 27, 2024
Merged

ESPnet-SPK: add ASVspoof19 SASV recipe#5687
sw005320 merged 32 commits intoespnet:masterfrom
Alexgichamba:asvspoof19_spk

Conversation

@Alexgichamba
Copy link
Contributor

@Alexgichamba Alexgichamba commented Feb 29, 2024

What?

Add a spk1 recipe on the ASVspoof19 Logical Access ASV subset.

Why?

Provide diverse recipes for ESPnet-SPK, adding an SASV example.

See also

ASVspoof19

@Alexgichamba Alexgichamba marked this pull request as ready for review February 29, 2024 14:58
@sw005320 sw005320 added the auto-merge Enable auto-merge label Feb 29, 2024
@sw005320 sw005320 added this to the v.202405 milestone Feb 29, 2024
@sw005320 sw005320 added SID Speaker identification/embedding and removed auto-merge Enable auto-merge labels Feb 29, 2024
@sw005320
Copy link
Contributor

@Jungjee, can you review this?

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 29, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 76.61%. Comparing base (c69d48e) to head (ed1691d).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5687      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.21%   76.61%   +4.39%     
==========================================
  Files         760      761       +1     
  Lines       69840    69880      +40     
==========================================
+ Hits        50435    53536    +3101     
+ Misses      19405    16344    -3061     
Flag Coverage Δ
test_configuration_espnet2 ∅ <ø> (∅)
test_integration_espnet1 62.92% <ø> (ø)
test_integration_espnet2 48.84% <ø> (?)
test_integration_espnetez 27.98% <ø> (ø)
test_python_espnet1 18.20% <ø> (ø)
test_python_espnet2 52.41% <ø> (ø)
test_python_espnetez 13.95% <ø> (ø)
test_utils 20.91% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@Jungjee Jungjee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the work, Alex!
I left a few comments, but in general, it looks great!

Meanwhile, please make additional required updates to make all CI tests pass.

) as f_utt2spk, open(os.path.join(dst, "wav.scp"), "w") as f_wav:

for spk in spk2utt:
f_spk2utt.write(f"{spk} {' '.join(spk2utt[spk])}\n")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

note that there's an utt2spk to spk2utt script within ESPnet.

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
#!/usr/bin/env bash
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[question] Where do we need this?
Do we need the train and the validation sets as well?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No. I did not use this. I thought perhaps someone using the recipe might want to do some in-domain finetuning. I could take it out if it is not needed.

@Alexgichamba
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for the work, Alex! I left a few comments, but in general, it looks great!

Meanwhile, please make additional required updates to make all CI tests pass.

Hi @Jungjee ,
Thanks for the review. I will address the comments.

@Alexgichamba
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @Jungjee,
I have addressed the comments, except for two of them.

  1. Should I remove the CM data prep? I had figured it might be useful later for in-domain finetuning
  2. For the utt2spk/spk2utt, should I change it and use the script instead?
  3. The CI checks that I am failing seem to be from install_espnet or test_python/test/espnet2/gan_tts. I am not quite sure how to make these pass

@sw005320
Copy link
Contributor

  1. The CI checks that I am failing seem to be from install_espnet or test_python/test/espnet2/gan_tts. I am not quite sure how to make these pass

I reran the CI

@Alexgichamba
Copy link
Contributor Author

  1. The CI checks that I am failing seem to be from install_espnet or test_python/test/espnet2/gan_tts. I am not quite sure how to make these pass

I reran the CI

Thank you. Seems to be okay now

@Jungjee
Copy link
Contributor

Jungjee commented Mar 27, 2024

Thanks @Alexgichamba for the updates and your effort!!

  1. Should I remove the CM data prep? I had figured it might be useful later for in-domain fine-tuning

I see. For me, it's okay to leave, but not so sure how @sw005320 would think about this.

  1. For the utt2spk/spk2utt, should I change it and use the script instead?

Yes, it may give more consistency with other parts. But to me, the current status is also okay.

  1. The CI checks that I am failing seem to be from install_espnet or test_python/test/espnet2/gan_tts. I am not quite sure how to make these pass

Now it's gone, thanks Shinji!

@sw005320
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @Alexgichamba for the updates and your effort!!

  1. Should I remove the CM data prep? I had figured it might be useful later for in-domain fine-tuning

I see. For me, it's okay to leave, but not so sure how @sw005320 would think about this.

We can leave it, then.

@sw005320 sw005320 merged commit 7265e7d into espnet:master Mar 27, 2024
@sw005320
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, @Alexgichamba
If you have some follow-up activities, please make a PR.

@Alexgichamba
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks, @Alexgichamba If you have some follow-up activities, please make a PR.

Thanks @sw005320 and @Jungjee. I appreciate the support!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ESPnet2 README SID Speaker identification/embedding

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants