A Comparative Study on Physical and Perceptual Features for Deepfake Audio Detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Audio content synthesis has stepped into a new era and brought a great threat to daily life since the development of deep learning techniques. The ASVSpoof Challenge and the ADD Challenge have been launched to motivate the development of Deepfake audio detection algorithms. Currently, the detection models, which consist of front-end feature extractors and back-end classifiers, utilize the physical features mainly, rather than the perceptual features that relate to natural emotions or breathiness. Therefore, we provide a comprehensive study on 16 physical and perceptual features and evaluate their effectiveness in both Track 1 and Track 2 of the ADD Challenge. Based on results, PLP, as a perceptual feature, outperforms the rest of the features in Track 1, while CQCC has the best performance in Track 2. Our experiments demonstrate the significance of perceptual features in detecting Deepfake audios. We also seek to explore the underlying characteristics of features that can distinguish Deepfake audio from a real one. We perform statistical analysis on each feature to show its distribution differences on real and synthesized audios. This paper will provide a potential direction in selecting appropriate feature extraction methods for the future implementation of detection models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it