Evaluates speech processing models on authentic, real-world conversations among super-aged Chinese speakers (75+). It probes capabilities in speaker verification, diarization, automatic speech recognition, and speech editing under conditions of age-related vocal degradation, dialectal variation, and presbyphonia. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SeniorTalk, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports EER.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill seniortalk-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Seniortalk Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-seniortalk-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: seniortalk-eval
description: Evaluates speech processing models on authentic, real-world conversations among super-aged Chinese speakers (75+). It probes capabilities in speaker verification, diarization, automatic speech recognition, and speech editing under conditions of age-related vocal degradation, dialectal variation, and presbyphonia. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SeniorTalk, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports EER.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2503.16578
bibtex_key: chen2025seniortalk
confidence: high
---
# seniortalk-eval
> SeniorTalk: A Chinese Conversation Dataset with Rich Annotations for Super-Aged Seniors — Yang Chen et al. (2025) (arXiv:2503.16578, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates speech processing models on authentic, real-world conversations among super-aged Chinese speakers (75+). It probes capabilities in speaker verification, diarization, automatic speech recognition, and speech editing under conditions of age-related vocal degradation, dialectal variation, and presbyphonia.
## Datasets
- **SeniorTalk** — total ?; splits: train (-1), val (-1), test (-1)
## Metrics
- `EER` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Equal Error Rate: the threshold τ where the miss probability equals the false alarm probability. The system accepts speakers as the same if similarity > τ, rejects if < τ.
- `minDCF` — range: percent
- Minimum Detection Cost: a cost-sensitive metric evaluating speaker verification systems under application-specific conditions.
- `DER` — range: percent
- Diarization Error Rate: DER = (FA + MD + Conf) / T, where FA is false alarm segments, MD is missed detection segments, Conf is confusion segments, and T is total reference speech segments.
- `CER` — range: percent
- Character Error Rate: CER = (S + D + I) / N, where S, D, I are substitutions, deletions, and insertions, and N is the total number of characters in the reference text.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Raw audio recordings of natural conversations among super-aged speakers, accompanied by reference transcriptions and speaker annotations.
**Output**: For verification/diarization: speaker identity labels or segment boundaries. For ASR: character-level transcriptions. For editing: modified audio waveforms.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_cer(predictions, references):
total_errors = 0
total_chars = 0
for pred, ref in zip(predictions, references):
# Compute edit distance (substitutions, deletions, insertions)
edits = levenshtein_distance(pred, ref)
total_errors += edits
total_chars += len(ref)
return (total_errors / total_chars) * 100 if total_chars > 0 else 0.0
```
## Common pitfalls
- Age-related vocal degradation (pitch instability, articulatory imprecision) significantly impacts model performance compared to standard adult speech benchmarks.
- Dialectal variation and regional accents cause substantial CER increases, with heavy accents pushing errors above 80% for some models.
- Gender imbalance (1:3 female-to-male ratio) in the dataset reduces the saliency of secondary sexual voice characteristics, complicating speaker separation.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We adopt two scoring approaches: probabilistic linear discriminant analysis (PLDA) and cosine similarity, with evaluation based on two metrics: (1) Equal Error Rate (EER): We define a threshold τ where the miss probability equals the false alarm probability. Specifically, if the similarity score is above this threshold, the system accepts that the speakers are the same person; if it is below this threshold, the system rejects the claim. This threshold is selected when the false acceptance rate equals the false rejection rate. (2) Minimum Detection Cost (minDCF): A cost-sensitive metric for evaluating speaker verification systems under application-specific conditions.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{chen2025seniortalk,
title={SeniorTalk: A Chinese Conversation Dataset with Rich Annotations for Super-Aged Seniors},
author={Yang Chen et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2503.16578}
}
```
- arXiv: 2503.16578
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!