Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Parallel Stacked Aggregated Network for Voice Authentication in IoT-Enabled Smart Devices

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read PSA-Net claims a single 18-layer raw-audio model can detect both cloned and replayed voice attacks, with EERs of 3.04% and 1.26% on ASVspoof 2019.

desk verdict Useful raw-audio anti-spoofing architecture with solid ablations, but the 'unified' claim rests on adding EERs from separately trained models, so the headline conclusion is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19841 v1 pith:TUD4BY2L submitted 2024-11-29 cs.SD cs.CRcs.NEeess.AS

Awais Khan , Ijaz Ul Haq , Khalid Mahmood Malik This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.CRcs.NEeess.AS
keywords voicespoofingdetectionauthenticationIoTsmartdevicesreplayattackcloningrawaudiodeeplearningsplit-transform-aggregatesqueeze-and-excitation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that one small neural network, PSA-Net, can replace the usual patchwork of attack-specific detectors for voice-controlled IoT devices, covering replayed recordings, AI-cloned or converted speech, and chained replays in a single model. The network consumes raw audio directly, skipping spectrograms and handcrafted features, and uses a split-transform-aggregate design with four parallel branches per block to learn embeddings that separate genuine from spoofed utterances. On the ASVspoof 2019 benchmark it reports equal error rates of 3.04% for logical-access (cloned) attacks and 1.26% for physical-access (replay) attacks, and it computes a cumulative EER near 4.30%; on the unseen ASVspoof 2021 attacks it reports 3.78% and 3.40%. The authors also report an EER of 0.87% for chained replays on an IoT-recorded corpus and 6.30% for partial spoofs. If the claim holds, a single lightweight model could secure smart speakers and similar devices against the main families of voice spoofing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the SE-PSA block, a residual block built around the paper's main design choice: cardinality, the number of parallel transformation paths. Each block splits its input into four branches, applies the same small stack of convolutions on every branch, merges the results, and then runs a squeeze-and-excitation layer that reweights channels before the skip connection adds the block input back. Five stacked SE-PSA blocks sit after three Conv1D layers, letting the network work directly on raw waveforms; the split adds width rather than depth, the merge combines diverse acoustic cues, and the channel recalibration is what the authors credit for separating replay artifacts from synthetic-speech artifacts. Spatial dropout before the aggregation point and residual skip connections keep the wider network trainable and less prone to overfitting.

What would settle it

Train one PSA-Net model jointly on the ASVspoof 2019 LA and PA subsets plus the VSDC corpus and evaluate it against the same unified baselines with identical training data; if the single model does not reproduce a cumulative EER near 4.30%, or if its joint error is no better than the baselines' scores, the paper's unified claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that adding a cardinality dimension to a residual network—splitting each block into four parallel transformation paths and aggregating their outputs—lets a raw-audio model generalize across spoofing attacks whose acoustic artifacts are very different. PSA-Net is an 18-layer network whose SE-PSA blocks combine this split-transform-merge strategy with squeeze-and-excitation recalibration, spatial dropout, and skip connections. Trained separately on the logical-access and physical-access subsets of ASVspoof 2019, it reaches equal error rates of 3.04% and 1.26%; trained jointly on both attack families plus the VSDC corpus, it reports a combined EER of 5.35% with a tandem detection cost (t-DCF) of 0.237. The same network trained only on ASVspoof 2019 handles unseen ASVspoof 2021 attacks at 3.78% (LA) and 3.40% (PA), chained replays at 0.87% EER, and partial spoofs at 6.30% EER. In the comparative tables PSA-Net ranks second on logical access behind a one-class model and second on replay behind a deeper squeeze-and-excitation residual system, while its cumulative score across both attack families is the lowest among the compared unified systems. The conclusion the authors draw is that a single architecture can give consistent protection across replay, cloning, and chained replay while staying small enough—about 30.5 million parameters and 25.35 MB—for IoT-class hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that PSA-Net is genuinely a unified countermeasure depends on pooling separately trained logical-access and physical-access models for the headline cumulative EER; the jointly trained model in Section 5.2.2 is reported at 5.35% EER and is not compared against unified baselines under the same training protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single PSA-Net model could sit in front of speaker verification on a smart device and screen every voice command for replay or cloning before authentication, with reported inference times of about 0.89 seconds on GPU, 1.10 on CPU, and 3.25 on a Jetson Nano for a four-second clip.
  • Because raw audio input beats CQCC, LFCC, GTCC, MFCC, and LPCC inside the same architecture, future versions of the network would not need dataset-specific feature engineering.
  • The model's transfer to unseen ASVspoof 2021 attacks without retraining suggests that a device updated once could resist new cloning algorithms, at 3.78% LA and 3.40% PA EER, until the next model update.
  • Joint LA+PA training in Section 5.2.2 gives an EER of 5.35%, so a deployed system trained on both attack families should expect higher errors than separately tuned models report.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • As an editorial extension, the paper's own ablation suggests the relationship between cardinality and accuracy is not monotonic: cardinality 4 with width 64 peaks at 0.93/0.97 AUC on LA/PA, while cardinality 8 with width 64 drops to 0.73/0.67, so the right width matters as much as the number of branches.
  • A testable next step the paper does not run is to fine-tune PSA-Net on a small slice of ASVspoof 2021 and see how much the 3.78%/3.40% gaps to self-supervised transformer front-ends close while keeping the 25 MB footprint.
  • Because the network runs on raw audio, the same SE-PSA backbone could plausibly transfer to other audio deepfake tasks such as singing-voice synthesis or partially spoofed speech; that transfer is not demonstrated here.
  • The fairer unified benchmark would compare a single jointly trained PSA-Net against baselines trained on the same combined data, rather than comparing separately trained models' cumulative numbers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PSA-Net, an 18-layer raw-audio aggregated residual network with squeeze-and-excitation blocks and cardinality 4, intended as a lightweight unified voice-spoofing countermeasure for IoT-enabled smart devices. The manuscript presents LA and PA results on ASVspoof2019, cross-dataset results on ASVspoof2021, PartialSpoof, and VSDC, an ablation study over network depth/cardinality/SE/skip connections, and an IoT-compatibility analysis in terms of parameters, FLOPs, and inference time. The headline claim is that a single PSA-Net architecture outperforms most dedicated and unified spoofing countermeasures while remaining deployable on resource-constrained devices.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the contribution would be practically relevant: training directly on raw audio avoids handcrafted feature engineering, the split-transform-aggregate design with cardinality is a reasonable architectural direction, and the reported EERs on ASVspoof2019 LA (3.04%) and PA (1.26%) are competitive. The paper's strengths include the large set of comparisons, the ablation study that isolates SE, skip connections, and spatial dropout, and the explicit resource measurements for edge devices. The main weakness is that the 'unified' conclusion is not yet supported by a matched evaluation: the cumulative EER is derived from two separately trained models, while the only jointly trained model is evaluated without any unified baseline under the same protocol.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2.2, Table 10, Figure 7] The central claim that PSA-Net is a unified countermeasure is not supported by the experiments as reported. Table 10 and Figure 7(a) compare separate ASVspoof2019-LA and ASVspoof2019-PA models, and the 'cumulative EER of nearly 4.30%' is the arithmetic sum 3.04% + 1.26% of two models trained and evaluated independently, not the EER of a single system. The only jointly trained model, described in §5.2.2, attains EER 5.35% and t-DCF 0.237, but no unified baseline is trained or evaluated under the same joint protocol. The paper itself argues in §5.2.2 that separate training and evaluation fail to assess real-world diverse attack scenarios, which directly undermines the use of Table 10 as evidence for the unified claim. Please report joint-protocol results for the baselines in Table 10, or explicitly restrict the unified claim to the jointly trained model and compare it with unified baselines.
  2. [§5.2.2] The joint-training protocol is underspecified. The text says LA and PA voice samples from ASVspoof2019 and VSDC were combined into one 'integrated spoofing category,' but it does not state whether the ASVspoof2019-PA subset, VSDC, or both contribute, how the classes (bonafide, clone, replay) are balanced, which development set is used for model selection, or which evaluation subsets are scored. These choices can materially change the EER and t-DCF, and the current description does not permit reproduction or a fair comparison with any baseline trained under the same protocol.
  3. [§4.4, Tables 5–10] The paper acknowledges in §4.4 that random seeds can change EER, citing prior work, but it reports a single run with no variance estimates for any of its headline numbers. Some claimed differences are small in absolute terms (e.g., PSA-18* at 1.26% vs ASSERT at 1.29% on PA; PSA-18* at 3.04% vs One-class Learning at 2.19% on LA), so without repeated seeds, confidence intervals, or a statistical comparison it is unclear whether the 'outperforms' statements are beyond noise. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three to five seeds for the main EER/t-DCF values and for the comparisons that support the central claims, or provide a significance test where applicable.
  4. [§5.3, Table 6] The text is internally inconsistent. It first states that PSA-Net 'outperformed eleven out of the twelve SOTA comparative countermeasures, with the lowest EER and t-DCF,' and then states that the proposed system 'performed second best on the ASVspoof2019-LA dataset, both with and without augmented samples.' Table 6 shows that One-class Learning [62] achieves EER 2.19, below PSA-18* with augmentation at 3.04, so the 'lowest EER' statement is false as written. Please reword the comparison to state clearly that PSA-Net is second-best on ASVspoof2019-LA and identify exactly which dedicated and unified systems it outperforms.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2.2, Eq. (11)] The z-score normalization formula is written as a sum over samples, which would always be zero; it should be per-sample standardization of the form (x_i - mu)/sigma without a summation over the entire signal.
  2. [§5.1, Table 4] AUC values are reported as '0.93%' and '0.97%'; AUC is a fraction between 0 and 1, so these should be written as 0.93 and 0.97, not as percentages.
  3. [§5.2.1, Table 5] The phrase 'an ideal EER of 0.87%' is unclear; please specify whether this is the overall EER for the multi-order replay condition, and correct the wording to avoid confusion with 'identical' or 'overall.'
  4. [§5.7, Table 12] The sentence listing '0.89, 1.10, and 3.25 seconds ... on GPU, CPU, and NVIDIA, respectively' uses 'NVIDIA' where 'Jetson Nano' appears to be intended; Table 12 uses 'Jetson-Nano' as the column header.
  5. [§3.2.3, Eqs. (2)–(3)] The notation in Eqs. (2) and (3) is confusing: Eq. (2) defines E_st^c as the sum of tau_i(n_i), and Eq. (3) then defines F_f^r as E_st^c plus the same sum again, effectively adding the same quantity twice; the intended residual formulation should be clarified.
  6. [§5.7, Table 12] The CPU inference times are non-monotonic in model size and FLOPs: PSA-2 (4×64) has higher parameters and FLOPs than PSA-1 (4×32) but is reported as faster on CPU (1.10 s vs 2.31 s); please verify the measurements or provide an explanation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: reported EERs are standard held-out benchmark results; self-citations and the cumulative-EER presentation are not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: PSA-Net is trained and evaluated on standard ASVspoof2019/2021, PartialSpoof, and VSDC partitions, and the reported EER/t-DCF values are measured on official evaluation subsets rather than derived from the model definition. The split-transform-merge architecture is inspired by an external computer-vision result (ResNeXt, [55]), and the cardinality/width choice is supported by an ablation study (Table 4); this is model selection on a benchmark, not a fitted quantity that is then renamed a prediction. No equation in the paper defines the predicted score as equal to a fitted parameter or to the training objective; Equations (2)-(3) are ordinary forward-pass definitions. The self-citations that appear are not load-bearing: [21] and [22] are review articles used for background motivation, and [4] provides the VSDC corpus used for out-of-set evaluation. These references do not establish the EER numbers or force the architecture choice. The most substantive concern is the 'unified' claim: Table 10 and Figure 7 combine EERs from separately trained LA and PA models, while the jointly trained model in Section 5.2.2 (EER 5.35, t-DCF 0.237) is not compared to unified baselines under the same joint protocol. That is an evaluation-validity issue about the headline conclusion, not circularity: the numbers are not defined in terms of the conclusion they are meant to support. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted input called a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own prior work. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity; minor self-citations do not rise to load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger lists hyperparameters chosen by search or hand (C, d, kernel sizes, frame length, learning rate, weight decay), trusted benchmark assumptions, and the transfer assumption from computer vision to speech anti-spoofing. No new physical entities are introduced; the architecture is assembled from known components.

free parameters (5)
  • Cardinality C = 4
    Selected after grid search in Section 5.1 (Table 4) because it gave best AUC on ASVspoof2019; the final reported results depend on this choice.
  • Model width d = 64
    Selected with C=4 in Section 5.1; controls the number of channels in SE-PSA blocks and the model footprint.
  • Filter and kernel sizes = Channels 64, 128, 256; kernels 196, 144, 100
    Set in Section 4.5 with no sensitivity analysis; directly shapes the convolutional audio representation.
  • Frame length = 4 seconds (64,000 samples)
    All audio is padded or truncated to this length in Section 4.2.1, which discards information from longer utterances.
  • Learning rate and weight decay = 1e-4 and 0.001
    Standard optimizer settings listed in Section 4.5; no ablation reported for these values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ASVspoof2019, ASVspoof2021, PartialSpoof, and VSDC labels and evaluation protocols are trusted ground truth
    All conclusions rely on benchmark correctness (Sections 4.1 and 5.2).
  • domain assumption The split-transform-aggregate design that works for ImageNet transfers to audio spoofing detection
    Motivated by ResNeXt [55] in Section 3.1; no theoretical or empirical proof is given for the transfer.
  • domain assumption Reported baseline EER/t-DCF values in Tables 6, 7, 9, and 10 are comparable despite different training data, features, and protocols
    Used in Sections 5.3 to 5.5 to claim outperformance; no reimplementation or matched-protocol comparison is provided.
  • domain assumption Raw waveform input contains sufficient spoofing artifacts without handcrafted features
    Central to the design choice in Section 3.1 and supported only by the internal comparison in Table 11.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parallel Stacked Aggregated Network for Voice Authentication in IoT-Enabled Smart Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUD4BY2L

@misc{pith2026241119841,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parallel Stacked Aggregated Network for Voice Authentication in IoT-Enabled Smart Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUD4BY2L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19841}
}
read the original abstract

Voice authentication on IoT-enabled smart devices has gained prominence in recent years due to increasing concerns over user privacy and security. The current authentication systems are vulnerable to different voice-spoofing attacks (e.g., replay, voice cloning, and audio deepfakes) that mimic legitimate voices to deceive authentication systems and enable fraudulent activities (e.g., impersonation, unauthorized access, financial fraud, etc.). Existing solutions are often designed to tackle a single type of attack, leading to compromised performance against unseen attacks. On the other hand, existing unified voice anti-spoofing solutions, not designed specifically for IoT, possess complex architectures and thus cannot be deployed on IoT-enabled smart devices. Additionally, most of these unified solutions exhibit significant performance issues, including higher equal error rates or lower accuracy for specific attacks. To overcome these issues, we present the parallel stacked aggregation network (PSA-Net), a lightweight framework designed as an anti-spoofing defense system for voice-controlled smart IoT devices. The PSA-Net processes raw audios directly and eliminates the need for dataset-dependent handcrafted features or pre-computed spectrograms. Furthermore, PSA-Net employs a split-transform-aggregate approach, which involves the segmentation of utterances, the extraction of intrinsic differentiable embeddings through convolutions, and the aggregation of them to distinguish legitimate from spoofed audios. In contrast to existing deep Resnet-oriented solutions, we incorporate cardinality as an additional dimension in our network, which enhances the PSA-Net ability to generalize across diverse attacks. The results show that the PSA-Net achieves more consistent performance for different attacks that exist in current anti-spoofing solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19841 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The workflow of voice-spoofing attacks and the corresponding defense mechanisms safeguarding IoT-enabled smart devices. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The internal architecture of the proposed parallel-stacked aggregated network (PSA-Net). Raw audio passes through three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Intra-architecture of SE-PSA Blocks with 4 cardinalities and pre-activation convolutions. The similar Intra-architecture repeated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The internal architectural for addressing the vanishing gradient via Spatial dropout. (a) A standard DNN, with processing and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Aggregated Feature Map extraction with the Squeeze and Excitation Block. The SE block include the spatial dropout applied [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The spectrogramatic representation of different augmentation applied to remove class imbalance and enhanced the learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of existing deepfake detection methods. * denotes augmentation. [37]-i and ii denote SENET-ASSERTS and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [62]

    You Zhang, Fei Jiang, and Zhiyao Duan. 2021. One-class learning towards synthetic voice spoofing detection. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 28 (2021), 937–941

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Saad Albawi, Tareq Abed Mohammed, and Saad Al-Zawi. 2017. Understanding of a convolutional neural network. In 2017 international conference on engineering and technology (ICET) . Ieee, 1–6

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Muteb Aljasem, Aun Irtaza, Hafiz Malik, Noushin Saba, Ali Javed, Khalid Mahmood Malik, and Mohammad Meharmohammadi. 2021. Secure automatic speaker verification (SASV) system through sm-ALTP features and asymmetric bagging. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 16 (2021), 3524–3537

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    PR Aravind, Usamath Nechiyil, Nandakumar Paramparambath, et al. 2020. Audio spoofing verification using deep convolutional neural networks by transfer learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.03464 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Roland Baumann, Khalid Mahmood Malik, Ali Javed, Andersen Ball, Brandon Kujawa, and Hafiz Malik. 2021. Voice spoofing detection corpus for single and multi-order audio replays. Computer Speech & Language 65 (2021), 101132

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Tianxiang Chen, Elie Khoury, Kedar Phatak, and Ganesh Sivaraman. 2021. Pindrop labs’ submission to the ASVspoof 2021 challenge. Proc. 2021 Edition of the Automatic Speaker Verification and Spoofing Countermeasures Challenge (2021), 89–93

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Tianxiang Chen, Avrosh Kumar, Parav Nagarsheth, Ganesh Sivaraman, and Elie Khoury. 2020. Generalization of Audio Deepfake Detection.. In Odyssey. 132–137

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Xinhui Chen, You Zhang, Ge Zhu, and Zhiyao Duan. 2021. UR channel-robust synthetic speech detection system for ASVspoof 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12018 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

    Bhusan Chettri, Daniel Stoller, Veronica Morfi, Marco A Martínez Ramírez, Emmanouil Benetos, and Bob L Sturm. 2019. Ensemble models for spoofing detection in automatic speaker verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.04589 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Rohan Kumar Das. 2021. Known-unknown data augmentation strategies for detection of logical access, physical access and speech deepfake attacks: ASVspoof 2021. Proc. 2021 Edition of the Automatic Speaker Verification and Spoofing Countermeasures Challenge (2021), 29–36

    2021

  3. [10]

    Rohan Kumar Das, Jichen Yang, and Haizhou Li. 2020. Assessing the scope of generalized countermeasures for anti-spoofing. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 6589–6593

    2020

  4. [11]

    Alejandro Gomez-Alanis, Antonio M Peinado, Jose A Gonzalez, and Angel M Gomez. 2019. A light convolutional GRU-RNN deep feature extractor for ASV spoofing detection. In Proc. Interspeech, Vol. 2019. 1068–1072

    2019

  5. [12]

    Priyanka Gupta, Piyushkumar K Chodingala, and Hemant A Patil. 2023. Replay spoof detection using energy separation based instantaneous frequency estimation from quadrature and in-phase components. Computer Speech & Language 77 (2023), 101423

    2023

  6. [13]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 1026–1034

    2015

  7. [14]

    Lian Huang and Chi-Man Pun. 2020. Audio replay spoof attack detection by joint segment-based linear filter bank feature extraction and attention-enhanced DenseNet-BiLSTM network. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 28 (2020), 1813–1825. Manuscript s...

    2020

  8. [15]

    Lian Huang and Chi-Man Pun. 2024. Self-Attention and Hybrid Features for Replay and Deep-Fake Audio Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05614 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Ali Javed, Khalid Mahmood Malik, Hafiz Malik, and Aun Irtaza. 2022. Voice spoofing detector: A unified anti-spoofing framework. Expert Systems with Applications 198 (2022), 116770

    2022

  10. [17]

    Jee-weon Jung, Hee-Soo Heo, Hemlata Tak, Hye-jin Shim, Joon Son Chung, Bong-Jin Lee, Ha-Jin Yu, and Nicholas Evans. 2022. Aasist: Audio anti-spoofing using integrated spectro-temporal graph attention networks. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Spe...

    2022

  11. [18]

    Madhu R Kamble, Hemlata Tak, and Hemant A Patil. 2020. Amplitude and frequency modulation-based features for detection of replay spoof speech. Speech Communication 125 (2020), 114–127

    2020

  12. [19]

    Awais Khan, Ali Javed, Khalid Mahmood Malik, Muhammad Anas Raza, James Ryan, Abdul Khader Jilani Saudagar, and Hafiz Malik. 2022. Toward Realigning Automatic Speaker Verification in the Era of COVID-19. Sensors 22, 7 (2022), 2638

    2022

  13. [20]

    Awais Khan and Khalid Mahmood Malik. 2023. SpoTNet: A spoofing-aware Transformer Network for Effective Synthetic Speech Detection. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Workshop on Multimedia AI against Disinformation . 10–18

    2023

  14. [21]

    Awais Khan, Khalid Mahmood Malik, James Ryan, and Mikul Saravanan. 2022. Voice Spoofing Countermeasures: Taxonomy, State-of-the-art, experimental analysis of generalizability, open challenges, and the way forward. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00417 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Awais Khan, Khalid Mahmood Malik, James Ryan, and Mikul Saravanan. 2023. Battling voice spoofing: a review, comparative analysis, and generalizability evaluation of state-of-the-art voice spoofing counter measures. Artificial Intelligence Review (2023), 1–54

    2023

  16. [23]

    Cheng-I Lai, Nanxin Chen, Jesús Villalba, and Najim Dehak. 2019. ASSERT: Anti-spoofing with squeeze-excitation and residual networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01120 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Galina Lavrentyeva, Sergey Novoselov, Andzhukaev Tseren, Marina Volkova, Artem Gorlanov, and Alexandr Kozlov. 2019. STC antispoofing systems for the ASVspoof2019 challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05576 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Sanghun Lee and Chulhee Lee. 2020. Revisiting spatial dropout for regularizing convolutional neural networks. Multimedia Tools and Applications 79, 45 (2020), 34195–34207

    2020

  19. [26]

    Rongjin Li, Miao Zhao, Zheng Li, Lin Li, and Qingyang Hong. 2019. Anti-Spoofing Speaker Verification System with Multi-Feature Integration and Multi-Task Learning.. In Interspeech. 1048–1052

    2019

  20. [27]

    Xu Li, Na Li, Chao Weng, Xunying Liu, Dan Su, Dong Yu, and Helen Meng. 2021. Replay and synthetic speech detection with res2net architecture. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 6354–6358

    2021

  21. [28]

    Rui Liu, Jinhua Zhang, and Guanglai Gao. 2024. Multi-space channel representation learning for mono-to-binaural conversion based audio deepfake detection. Information Fusion (2024), 102257

    2024

  22. [29]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Qiaowei Ma, Jinghui Zhong, Yitao Yang, Weiheng Liu, Ying Gao, and Wing W. Y. Ng. 2022. ConvNeXt Based Neural Network for Audio Anti-Spoofing. arXiv:2209.06434 [cs.SD]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Youxuan Ma, Zongze Ren, and Shugong Xu. 2021. RW-Resnet: A novel speech anti-spoofing model using raw waveform. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.05684 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Juan M Martín-Doñas and Aitor Álvarez. 2022. The vicomtech audio deepfake detection system based on wav2vec2 for the 2022 add challenge. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 9241–9245

    2022

  26. [33]

    Joao Monteiro, Jahangir Alam, and Tiago H Falk. 2020. Generalized end-to-end detection of spoofing attacks to automatic speaker recognizers. Computer Speech & Language 63 (2020), 101096

    2020

  27. [34]

    Hannah Muckenhirn, Mathew Magimai-Doss, and Sébastien Marcel. 2017. End-to-End convolutional neural network-based voice presentation attack detection. In 2017 IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB) . 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1109/BTAS.2017.8272715

    2017

  28. [35]

    Asli Nur Omeroglu, Hussein MA Mohammed, and Emin Argun Oral. 2022. Multi-modal voice pathology detection architecture based on deep and handcrafted feature fusion. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 36 (2022), 101148

    2022

  29. [36]

    So-Hyun Park and Il-Gu Lee. 2020. Effective voice fuzzing method for finding vulnerabilities in AI speech recognition devices. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI) . IEEE, 1–6

    2020

  30. [37]

    Dipjyoti Paul, Monisankha Pal, and Goutam Saha. 2017. Spectral features for synthetic speech detection. IEEE journal of selected topics in signal processing 11, 4 (2017), 605–617

    2017

  31. [38]

    Raoudha Rahmeni, Anis Ben Aicha, and Yassine Ben Ayed. 2020. Speech spoofing detection using SVM and ELM technique with acoustic features. In 2020 5th International Conference on Advanced Technologies for Signal and Image Processing (ATSIP) . IEEE, 1–4

    2020

  32. [39]

    Md Sahidullah, Tomi Kinnunen, and Cemal Hanilçi. 2015. A comparison of features for synthetic speech detection. (2015)

    2015

  33. [40]

    Souvik Sinha, Spandan Dey, and Goutam Saha. 2024. Improving self-supervised learning model for audio spoofing detection with layer-conditioned embedding fusion. Computer Speech & Language 86 (2024), 101599

    2024

  34. [41]

    Kaavya Sriskandaraja, Vidhyasaharan Sethu, Eliathamby Ambikairajah, and Haizhou Li. 2016. Front-end for antispoofing countermeasures in speaker verification: Scattering spectral decomposition. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 11, 4 (2016), 632–643

    2016

  35. [42]

    Statista. 2023. Voice assistant users in the United States 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1384575/voice-assistant-users-united-states/ Accessed: February 14, 2024. Manuscript submitted to ACM Parallel Stacked Aggregated Network for Voice Authentication in IoT-Enable...

    2023

  36. [43]

    Gajan Suthokumar, Kaavya Sriskandaraja, Vidhyasaharan Sethu, Chamith Wijenayake, and Eliathamby Ambikairajah. 2018. An Investigation about the Scalability of the Spoofing Detection System. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation for Sustainability (...

    2018

  37. [44]

    Hemlata Tak, Jee-weon Jung, Jose Patino, Madhu Kamble, Massimiliano Todisco, and Nicholas Evans. 2021. End-to-end spectro-temporal graph attention networks for speaker verification anti-spoofing and speech deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12710 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Hemlata Tak, Jose Patino, Andreas Nautsch, Nicholas Evans, and Massimiliano Todisco. 2020. Spoofing attack detection using the non-linear fusion of sub-band classifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10393 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Hemlata Tak, Massimiliano Todisco, Xin Wang, Jee-weon Jung, Junichi Yamagishi, and Nicholas Evans. 2022. Automatic speaker verification spoofing and deepfake detection using wav2vec 2.0 and data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12233 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Massimiliano Todisco, Héctor Delgado, and Nicholas WD Evans. 2016. A New Feature for Automatic Speaker Verification Anti-Spoofing: Constant Q Cepstral Coefficients.. In Odyssey, Vol. 2016. 283–290

    2016

  41. [48]

    Massimiliano Todisco, Xin Wang, Ville Vestman, Md Sahidullah, Héctor Delgado, Andreas Nautsch, Junichi Yamagishi, Nicholas Evans, Tomi Kinnunen, and Kong Aik Lee. 2019. ASVspoof 2019: Future horizons in spoofed and fake audio detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05441 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Anton Tomilov, Aleksei Svishchev, Marina Volkova, Artem Chirkovskiy, Alexander Kondratev, and Galina Lavrentyeva. 2021. STC Antispoofing Systems for the ASVspoof2021 Challenge. In Proc. 2021 Edition of the Automatic Speaker Verification and Spoofing Countermeasures Challenge ....

    2021 doi

  43. [50]

    Ya Tu and Yun Lin. 2019. Deep neural network compression technique towards efficient digital signal modulation recognition in edge device. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 58113–58119

    2019

  44. [51]

    Xin Wang and Junich Yamagishi. 2021. A comparative study on recent neural spoofing countermeasures for synthetic speech detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11326 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Xin Wang and Junichi Yamagishi. 2021. Investigating self-supervised front ends for speech spoofing countermeasures.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07725 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Zhenzong Wu, Rohan Kumar Das, Jichen Yang, and Haizhou Li. 2020. Light convolutional neural network with feature genuinization for detection of synthetic speech attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.09637 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Zifeng Wu, Chunhua Shen, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2019. Wider or deeper: Revisiting the resnet model for visual recognition.Pattern Recognition 90 (2019), 119–133

    2019

  48. [55]

    Saining Xie, Ross Girshick, Piotr Dollár, Zhuowen Tu, and Kaiming He. 2017. Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 1492–1500

    2017

  49. [56]

    Junichi Yamagishi, Xin Wang, Massimiliano Todisco, Md Sahidullah, Jose Patino, Andreas Nautsch, Xuechen Liu, Kong Aik Lee, Tomi Kinnunen, Nicholas Evans, et al. 2021. ASVspoof 2021: accelerating progress in spoofed and deepfake speech detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00537 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Jichen Yang, Hongji Wang, Rohan Kumar Das, and Yanmin Qian. 2021. Modified magnitude-phase spectrum information for spoofing detection. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 29 (2021), 1065–1078

    2021

  51. [58]

    Fisher Yu, Dequan Wang, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. 2018. Deep layer aggregation. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2403–2412

    2018

  52. [59]

    Hossein Zeinali, Themos Stafylakis, Georgia Athanasopoulou, Johan Rohdin, Ioannis Gkinis, Lukáš Burget, Jan Černock`y, et al. 2019. Detecting spoofing attacks using vgg and sincnet: but-omilia submission to asvspoof 2019 challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.12908 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Lin Zhang, Xin Wang, Erica Cooper, and Junichi Yamagishi. 2021. Multi-task learning in utterance-level and segmental-level spoof detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14132 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Lin Zhang, Xin Wang, Erica Cooper, Junichi Yamagishi, Jose Patino, and Nicholas Evans. 2021. An initial investigation for detecting partially spoofed audio. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.02518 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Yuxiang Zhang12, Wenchao Wang12, and Pengyuan Zhang12. 2021. The effect of silence and dual-band fusion in anti-spoofing system. (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Fang Zheng, Guoliang Zhang, and Zhanjiang Song. 2001. Comparison of different implementations of MFCC. Journal of Computer science and Technology 16 (2001), 582–589

    2001

  57. [65]

    Yupeng Zhu, Yanxiang Chen, Zuxing Zhao, Xueliang Liu, and Jinlin Guo. 2023. Local Self-Attention based Hybrid Multiple Instance Learning for Partial Spoof Speech Detection. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (2023). Received April 2024 Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.