Table 6 Female speaker verification results of i-vector 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

31.32 (0.58)

41.84 (0.78)

44.52 (0.84)

25.14

29.65

− 5

20.16 (0.38)

29.44 (0.55)

36.76 (0.86)

31.52

45.15

0

11.82 (0.22)

15.80 (0.30)

23.93 (0.44)

25.19

50.60

5

6.81 (0.12)

8.34 (0.15)

14.35 (0.26)

18.34

52.54

10

4.13 (0.07)

4.85 (0.08)

9.64 (0.18)

14.84

57.15

− 10

38.79 (0.71)

46.26 (0.85)

47.71 (0.88)

16.14

18.69

− 5

27.99 (0.52)

37.63 (0.70)

42.20 (0.78)

25.61

33.67

0

17.4 (0.33)

24.43 (0.46)

31.54 (0.59)

28.77

44.83

5

9.93 (0.18)

11.89 (0.22)

19.29 (0.36)

16.48

48.52

10

5.87 (0.10)

6.16 (0.11)

12.54 (0.23)

4.70

53.19

− 10

3.62 (0.06)

3.77 (0.06)

6.74 (0.12)

3.97

47.29

− 5

2.82 (0.05)

3.19 (0.05)

6.23 (0.11)

11.59

54.73

0

2.75 (0.04)

3.12 (0.05)

6.09 (0.11)

11.86

54.84

5

2.75 (0.04)

3.04 (0.05)

6.02 (0.11)

9.54

54.32

10

2.75 (0.04)

3.04 (0.05)

6.09 (0.11)

9.54

54.82

− 10

33.21 (0.63)

44.81 (0.84)

46.12 (0.84)

25.88

27.99

− 5

21.68 (0.40)

34.15 (0.63)

40.32 (0.75)

36.51

46.23

0

12.98 (0.24)

20.08 (0.37)

27.19 (0.51)

35.35

52.26

5

6.89 (0.12)

9.42 (0.17)

16.75 (0.31)

26.85

58.86

10

4.06 (0.07)

5.07 (0.09)

10.73 (0.19)

19.92

62.16

− 10

33.21 (0.63)

46.04 (0.85)

45.17 (0.83)

27.86

26.47

− 5

26.83 (0.50)

34.37 (0.64)

35.53 (0.65)

21.93

24.48

0

15.08 (0.28)

18.92 (0.35)

22.33 (0.42)

20.29

32.46

5

8.12 (0.14)

10.37 (0.19)

13.77 (0.26)

21.69

41.03

10

4.20 (0.07)

6.23 (0.11)

8.99 (0.17)

32.58

53.28