MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298394324 · doi:10.1145/3552466.3556523

A Comparative Study on Physical and Perceptual Features for Deepfake Audio Detection

2022· article· en· W4298394324 on OpenAlexaff
Menglu Li, Yasaman Ahmadiadli, Xiao–Ping Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePerceptionFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceFeature extractionSpeech recognitionMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207