Speaker attribution from speech transcripts is the task of identifying a speaker from the transcript of their speech based on patterns in their language use. This task is especially useful when the audio is unavailable (e.g., deleted) or unreliable (e.g., anonymized speech). Prior work in this area has primarily focused on the feasibility of attributing speakers using transcripts produced by human annotators. However, in real-world settings, one often only has more errorful transcripts produced by automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems. In this paper, we conduct what is, to our knowledge, the first comprehensive study of the impact of automatic transcription on speaker attribution performance. In particular, we study the extent to which speaker attribution performance degrades in the face of transcription errors, as well as how properties of the ASR system impact attribution. We find that attribution is surprisingly resilient to word-level transcription errors and that the objective of recovering the true transcript is minimally correlated with attribution performance. Overall, our findings suggest that speaker attribution on more errorful transcripts produced by ASR is as good, if not better, than attribution based on human-transcribed data, possibly because ASR transcription errors can capture speaker-specific features revealing of speaker identity.

Authorship verification is the task of determining if two distinct writing samples share the same author and is typically concerned with the attribution of written text. In this paper, we explore the attribution of transcribed speech, which poses novel challenges. The main challenge is that many stylistic features, such as punctuation and capitalization, are not informative in this setting. On the other hand, transcribed speech exhibits other patterns, such as filler words and backchannels (e.g., um, uh-huh), which may be characteristic of different speakers. We propose a new benchmark for speaker attribution focused on human-transcribed conversational speech transcripts. To limit spurious associations of speakers with topic, we employ both conversation prompts and speakers participating in the same conversation to construct verification trials of varying difficulties. We establish the state of the art on this new benchmark by comparing a suite of neural and non-neural baselines, finding that although written text attribution models achieve surprisingly good performance in certain settings, they perform markedly worse as conversational topic is increasingly controlled. We present analyses of the impact of transcription style on performance as well as the ability of fine-tuning on speech transcripts to improve performance.1

Automatically disentangling an author’s style from the content of their writing is a longstanding and possibly insurmountable problem in computational linguistics. At the same time, the availability of large text corpora furnished with author labels has recently enabled learning authorship representations in a purely data-driven manner for authorship attribution, a task that ostensibly depends to a greater extent on encoding writing style than encoding content. However, success on this surrogate task does not ensure that such representations capture writing style since authorship could also be correlated with other latent variables, such as topic. In an effort to better understand the nature of the information these representations convey, and specifically to validate the hypothesis that they chiefly encode writing style, we systematically probe these representations through a series of targeted experiments. The results of these experiments suggest that representations learned for the surrogate authorship prediction task are indeed sensitive to writing style. As a consequence, authorship representations may be expected to be robust to certain kinds of data shift, such as topic drift over time. Additionally, our findings may open the door to downstream applications that require stylistic representations, such as style transfer.