Table 1 Male speaker verification results of GMM-UBM method in terms of percent EER (minDCF) for the proposed algorithm, Drugman’s VAD method [27], and Rangachari’s noise tracking method [21]. The last columns show the relative percent EER reduction rates compared to Drugman’s VAD and Rangachari’s method, respectively

− 10

34.25 (0.64)

46.10 (0.85)

47.4 (0.87)

25.70

27.74

− 5

25.30 (0.47)

32.18 (0.60)

39.22 (0.72)

21.38

35.49

0

15.29 (0.28)

14.60 (0.27)

22.47 (0.42)

− 4.72

31.95

5

8.41 (0.15)

8.41 (0.15)

13.45 (0.24)

0

37.47

10

5.42 (0.10)

6.50 (0.12)

9.93 (0.18)

16.61

45.41

− 10

41.28 (0.78)

48.31 (0.88)

48.16 (0.89)

14.55

14.28

− 5

31.88 (0.60)

41.82 (0.80)

45.18 (0.84)

23.77

29.43

0

20.87 (0.39)

24.38 (0.46)

33.4 (0.60)

14.40

37.51

5

11.85 (0.22)

11.54 (0.21)

18.19 (0.34)

− 2.68

34.85

10

6.95 (0.13)

7.8 (0.14)

12.46 (0.23)

10.89

44.22

− 10

5.96 (0.10)

6.27 (0.11)

8.94 (0.16)

4.94

33.33

− 5

4.74 (0.08)

5.88 (0.10)

8.35 (0.15)

19.38

43.23

0

4.35 (0.08)

5.50 (0.10)

8.18 (0.15)

20.91

46.82

5

4.05 (0.07)

5.27 (0.09)

7.95 (0.14)

23.15

49.05

10

4.05 (0.07)

5.12 (0.09)

7.95 (0.14)

20.90

49.05

− 10

36.85 (0.69)

48.08 (0.87)

47.85 (0.88)

23.35

22.98

− 5

26.83 (0.50)

38.45 (0.72)

43.94 (0.87)

30.22

42.84

0

17.50 (0.33)

19.49 (0.36)

28.28 (0.51)

10.21

38.11

5

10.01 (0.18)

10.16 (0.18)

14.52 (0.27)

1.47

31.06

10

6.72 (0.12)

7.26 (0.13)

10.93 (0.20)

7.44

38.51

− 10

42.66 (0.79)

47.17 (0.86)

45.18 (0.84)

9.56

5.57

− 5

33.71 (0.62)

37.23 (0.69)

37.15 (0.69)

9.45

9.26

0

19.95 (0.37)

19.26 (0.36)

20.41 (0.38)

− 3.58

2.25

5

9.40 (0.17)

9.71 (0.18)

11.62 (0.21)

3.19

19.10

10

5.96 (0.11)

6.95 (0.12)

9.32 (0.17)

14.24

36.05