Phonetic Analysis of Real and Synthetic Speech Using HuBERT Embeddings: Perspectives for Deepfake Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing sophistication of speech generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) has introduced new challenges in audio deepfake detection. Text-to-speech (TTS) and voice conversion (VC) technologies can now produce convincing synthetic speech with high quality and intelligibility. This poses a serious threat to voice biometric security systems, such as automatic speaker recognition. It also increases the risks associated to the spread of spoken disinformation, where synthetic voices can be used to disseminate malicious content. In this study, we conduct an analysis of real and synthetic speech at phonetic and word levels. For that, a parallel dataset comprising real and synthetic speech signals were developed based on a subset of the LibriSpeech ASR corpus. Synthetic speech samples were generated using two TTS and one VC systems: Coqui TTS, VITS TTS, and StarGANv2 VC. We adopted HuBERT, a self-supervised speech model, to extract speech embeddings. The motivation for using this model stems from its ability to recognize sound units corresponding to the so-called pseudo phonemes. Our analysis is based on the KL divergence (KLD) between the distributions of synthetic and real phonemes, which allowed us to rank synthetic phonemes based on their alignment with their real counterpart. We also trained several classifiers per phoneme to distinguish between real and synthetic samples. We then compute the correlations between KLD and accuracies per phoneme. Besides showing a list of phonemes that are more discriminative, our findings suggest that vowels correlate better with the classifiers’ performance, suggesting that the KLD can be an indicator of the most distinguishable phonemes for deepfake detection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".