Investigation of Deepfake Voice Detection Using Speech Pause Patterns: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The digital era has witnessed an escalating dependence on digital platforms for news and information, coupled with the advent of "deepfake" technology. Deepfakes, leveraging deep learning models on extensive data sets of voice recordings and images, pose substantial threats to media authenticity, potentially leading to unethical misuse such as impersonation and the dissemination of false information. OBJECTIVE: To counteract this challenge, this study aims to introduce the concept of innate biological processes to discern between authentic human voices and cloned voices. We propose that the presence or absence of certain perceptual features, such as pauses in speech, can effectively distinguish between cloned and authentic audio. METHODS: A total of 49 adult participants representing diverse ethnic backgrounds and accents were recruited. Each participant contributed voice samples for the training of up to 3 distinct voice cloning text-to-speech models and 3 control paragraphs. Subsequently, the cloning models generated synthetic versions of the control paragraphs, resulting in a data set consisting of up to 9 cloned audio samples and 3 control samples per participant. We analyzed the speech pauses caused by biological actions such as respiration, swallowing, and cognitive processes. Five audio features corresponding to speech pause profiles were calculated. Differences between authentic and cloned audio for these features were assessed, and 5 classical machine learning algorithms were implemented using these features to create a prediction model. The generalization capability of the optimal model was evaluated through testing on unseen data, incorporating a model-naive generator, a model-naive paragraph, and model-naive participants. RESULTS: Cloned audio exhibited significantly increased time between pauses (P<.001), decreased variation in speech segment length (P=.003), increased overall proportion of time speaking (P=.04), and decreased rates of micro- and macropauses in speech (both P=.01). Five machine learning models were implemented using these features, with the AdaBoost model demonstrating the highest performance, achieving a 5-fold cross-validation balanced accuracy of 0.81 (SD 0.05). Other models included support vector machine (balanced accuracy 0.79, SD 0.03), random forest (balanced accuracy 0.78, SD 0.04), logistic regression, and decision tree (balanced accuracies 0.76, SD 0.10 and 0.72, SD 0.06). When evaluating the optimal AdaBoost model, it achieved an overall test accuracy of 0.79 when predicting unseen data. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of perceptual, biological features into machine learning models demonstrates promising results in distinguishing between authentic human voices and cloned audio.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".