Use when packaging code, models, and audio artifacts for an INTERSPEECH paper — anonymous demo pages and sample audio during double-blind review, public release at camera-ready, checkpoint and recipe distribution, voice-data licensing and speaker-consent hygiene, and the ethics of releasing synthesis or cloning systems.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill interspeech-artifact-evaluation --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Interspeech Artifact Evaluation?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-interspeech-artifact-evaluation)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: interspeech-artifact-evaluation
description: Use when packaging code, models, and audio artifacts for an INTERSPEECH paper — anonymous demo pages and sample audio during double-blind review, public release at camera-ready, checkpoint and recipe distribution, voice-data licensing and speaker-consent hygiene, and the ethics of releasing synthesis or cloning systems.
---
# INTERSPEECH Artifact Evaluation
Interspeech has no badge-granting artifact committee; the artifact culture is
community-enforced instead. Reviewers listen to your samples, and post-publication
readers judge the paper by whether the recipe reproduces. This skill treats
artifacts in the two states an Interspeech cycle forces: **anonymous during review,
permanent after acceptance**. Check the current author instructions for what may be
attached versus linked — attachment rules vary by cycle.
## The speech-specific artifact set
| Artifact | Review-time form | Post-acceptance form |
|---|---|---|
| Audio samples (TTS/VC/enhancement) | Anonymous static demo page or attached files | Permanent samples page linked in camera-ready |
| Code + training recipe | Anonymized repo (no usernames in history/CI) | Public repo, tagged at the paper's commit |
| Model checkpoints | Usually withheld (size, identity risk) | Hosted release with license and card |
| Data/corpus contribution | Described + license stated in paper | Archived with DOI, documented splits |
| Scoring/protocol scripts | In the anonymized repo | In the public repo — the piece most reused |
## Anonymous demo pages without leaks
Audio demos are where Interspeech anonymity dies. Before the deadline, sweep:
- Hosting identity: GitHub Pages under a personal account, university subdomains,
and cloud buckets named after the lab all deanonymize. Use a fresh neutral host.
- Page furniture: analytics IDs, favicon, footer credits, CNAME records.
- The audio itself: a distinctive proprietary voice can identify the lab as surely
as a name — consider whether samples themselves are identifying.
- File metadata: WAV/MP3 tags, encoder strings, creation paths.
- Immutability: do not edit the page during review; a changing page suggests
post-deadline work and can carry timestamps.
## Voice data is personal data
Speech artifacts carry legal and ethical weight that generic ML artifacts do not:
- **Corpus licenses bind derivatives.** VoxCeleb-trained speaker models, LDC-derived
lexicons, and YouTube-scraped audio each constrain what you may redistribute.
State, in the paper, the license of every corpus used.
- **Speaker consent** governs sample release: a cloned or converted voice needs the
source speaker's permission to be published, even "just for the demo page."
- **Cloning/spoofing dual use**: for synthesis and voice-conversion systems, say
what you release (recipe? checkpoint? nothing beyond samples?) and why. The
community norm — visible in anti-spoofing challenges like ASVspoof — is to weigh
release against misuse and to say so explicitly.
- Do not ship raw audio of human subjects unless its license explicitly allows
redistribution; ship feature extraction from the official corpus instead.
## Minimum viable recipe
A speech result is reproducible when a stranger can regenerate the *number*, not
just run the model. Package for the number:
```text
release/
├── README.md # env, corpus versions + licenses, one command per table row
├── recipe/ # data prep → training → decoding, in run order
├── conf/ # exact configs/hyperparameters used in the paper
├── scoring/ # the WER/EER/MOS-analysis scripts and text-norm rules
├── RESULTS.md # expected outputs with tolerances (seeds, CI width)
└── LICENSE # code license + data-license pointers
```
The `scoring/` directory matters most at this venue: WER moves with text
normalization and EER with trial lists, so publish the measurement, not only the
model (see `interspeech-reproducibility`).
## Timing across the cycle
- **Before submission**: anonymous demo page frozen; repo anonymized if linked.
- **During review**: touch nothing linked from the paper.
- **At camera-ready** (19 June in the 2026 cycle): flip links to permanent public
homes; tag the repo; add the paper's ISCA Archive DOI to the README.
- **Conference week**: QR to samples on the poster; the demo page is your talk's
safety net when room audio fails.
## Leak patterns seen in the wild
Concrete ways speech artifacts have deanonymized their authors — sweep for each:
- A demo page hosted at `<university>.github.io/<lab-project>/` linked straight
from the anonymous PDF.
- Git history in a "fresh" anonymized repo carrying the original committer
emails (`git log --format='%ae' | sort -u` before sharing).
- WAV files whose RIFF metadata names the workstation user; MP3 ID3 tags naming
the recording engineer.
- A samples page reusing the lab's distinctive in-house TTS voice from previous
published demos — recognizable by ear.
- Cloud-bucket URLs containing the grant acronym.
- Analytics or font-loader scripts on the demo page tying it to the lab's other
properties.
## Checkpoint release decision aid
| Situation | Community-normal release |
|---|---|
| ASR/SSL encoder on licensed-but-public corpora | Recipe + checkpoint |
| Speaker-verification model on VoxCeleb-family data | Recipe + checkpoint, license noted |
| TTS/VC on a consenting or synthetic voice | Recipe + checkpoint + samples |
| TTS/VC cloning a real speaker without release rights | Recipe + samples only; no checkpoint |
| Anything trained on scraped, unlicensed audio | Describe honestly; release nothing derived |
## Output format
```text
[Artifact inventory] samples / code / checkpoints / data / scoring — state of each
[Anonymity sweep] host, page, metadata, voice-identifiability findings
[License chain] corpus licenses → what may be redistributed
[Consent/dual-use] speaker permission status; release decision + rationale
[Release plan] what flips public at camera-ready, where it lives permanently
[Gaps] <ordered fixes>
```
Attachment size limits, link policies, and any new artifact requirements are
cycle-volatile — verify on the current author pages (2026 sources logged in
`resources/official-source-map.md`, checked 2026-07-08).
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!