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
The availability of smart devices leads to an exponential increase in multimedia content. However, advancements in deep learning have also enabled the creation of highly sophisticated Deepfake content, including speech Deepfakes, which pose a serious threat by generating realistic voices and spreading misinformation. To combat this, numerous challenges have been organized to advance speech Deepfake detection techniques. In this survey, we systematically analyze more than 200 papers published up to March 2024. We provide a comprehensive review of each component in the detection pipeline, including model architectures, optimization techniques, generalizability, evaluation metrics, performance comparisons, available datasets, and open source availability. For each aspect, we assess recent progress and discuss ongoing challenges. In addition, we explore emerging topics such as partial Deepfake detection, cross-dataset evaluation, and defenses against adversarial attacks, while suggesting promising research directions. This survey not only identifies the current state of the art to establish strong baselines for future experiments but also offers clear guidance for researchers aiming to enhance speech Deepfake detection systems.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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