Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 68 references

SpeechFake: A Large-Scale Multilingual Speech Deepfake Dataset Incorporating Cutting-Edge Generation Methods

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SpeechFake, a 3-million-clip multilingual dataset built from 40 speech-generation tools, makes trained detectors generalize to unseen deepfake methods far better than ASVspoof2019 training does, with 50–80% lower error rates on several…

desk verdict SpeechFake is a genuinely useful dataset resource, but the paper oversells its external generalization results because the 'unseen' test sets are not method-disjoint from training. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21463 v1 pith:DK2FZRZ7 submitted 2025-07-29 cs.SD eess.AS

Wen Huang , Yanmei Gu , Zhiming Wang , Huijia Zhu , Yanmin Qian This is my paper
classification cs.SDeess.AS
keywords speechdeepfakedetectiondatasettext-to-speechvoiceconversionneuralvocodermultilingualgeneralizationequalerrorrate
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

This paper introduces SpeechFake, a public dataset of more than three million fake speech clips and over three thousand hours of audio, produced with 40 speech-synthesis tools and covering 46 languages, and argues that training on this diversity makes deepfake detectors generalize to generators they have never seen. The core evidence is a side-by-side comparison in which AASIST and W2V+AASIST models trained on SpeechFake's Bilingual Dataset consistently outperform the same models trained on the standard ASVspoof2019 benchmark, with relative equal-error-rate (EER) reductions of 50–80% on the unseen WaveFake, In-the-Wild, and CD-ADD test sets. Supporting experiments separate the axes that drive the gain: modern text-to-speech data transfers best to unseen commercial TTS APIs, multilingual pretraining nearly closes the language gap, and speaker identity contributes little. If the results hold, the dataset provides a training resource that is better matched to the current generation of synthesis tools than existing benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dataset itself, and specifically its controlled diversity. SpeechFake is partitioned into a Bilingual Dataset (English and Chinese) and a Multilingual Dataset (46 languages), and every fake clip carries metadata for generation method, voice/speaker ID, language, and text transcription, so the training distribution can be matched to or deliberately separated from the test distribution. A three-way generator taxonomy (TTS, VC, NV, defined by input modality at inference) lets the authors construct train/test splits that isolate whether a generation method was seen during training. The evaluation machinery is paired training of two standard detectors—AASIST, a spectro-temporal graph attention network, and W2V+AASIST, the same network with a Wav2Vec 2.0 XLS-R frontend—measured by equal error rate across a common set of external benchmarks.

What would settle it

Take a commercial TTS API that is not among the 40 tools used in SpeechFake, generate a held-out test set with no quality filtering, and compare equal error rates of models trained on SpeechFake-BD and on ASVspoof2019; if the SpeechFake-trained model's relative EER reduction on this fresh generator is much smaller than the 50–80% range reported on WaveFake, In-the-Wild, and CD-ADD, the generalization claim is not general.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SpeechFake is a large-scale, public, multilingual benchmark built to reflect current speech generation rather than the older and narrower method mix of earlier datasets. Its Bilingual Dataset contains 2,003,016 fake utterances in English and Chinese, generated by 30 open-source tools and 10 commercial APIs spanning text-to-speech, voice conversion, and neural vocoders; its Multilingual Dataset adds 1,335,492 utterances across 46 languages using six multilingual generators. The paper's central discovery is that detection models trained on this diversity generalize to unseen generators: on the WaveFake, In-the-Wild, and CD-ADD test sets, SpeechFake-trained models beat ASVspoof2019-trained models by 50–80% relative EER, and the W2V+AASIST variant stays competitive on ASVspoof2019's own evaluation set. The authors then use cross-generator, cross-lingual, and cross-speaker splits to show that generation method and language diversity are the factors that matter, while speaker identity has only a small effect.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 40 synthesis tools, after voice-activity filtering and review of roughly 1% of samples, produce fake audio whose artifacts are representative of what detectors will meet in practice, and if important synthesis channels are missing or hard cases are filtered out, the measured generalization gains may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training on SpeechFake's Bilingual Dataset gives 50–80% relative EER improvements over ASVspoof2019 training on the unseen WaveFake, In-the-Wild, and CD-ADD test sets, so large, method-diverse training data is a direct route to better cross-generator detection.
  • Models trained only on TTS data transfer best to the held-out commercial API set, indicating that exposure to modern text-to-speech output is the most useful ingredient for finding commercially generated deepfakes.
  • Language mismatch hurts detection even when generation methods are seen in training, but a multilingual self-supervised frontend (XLS-R) almost closes the gap, pointing to a practical recipe for multilingual detection.
  • Cross-speaker experiments on one multi-speaker TTS system show that detectors learn deepfake-specific artifacts rather than memorizing speaker identity; only completely unseen fake speakers cause a small EER increase.
  • The rich per-sample metadata lets future studies control for generation method, language, and speaker independently instead of treating them as confounded variables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the ten commercial APIs appear only in the unseen test set, SpeechFake defines a deployment-like protocol: a detector is trained entirely on open-source tools and then faces proprietary synthesis, which is closer to real-world conditions than a random split within one benchmark.
  • If the generalization gains are driven by the diversity and recency of the generator set rather than dataset size alone, then periodically refreshing the listed tools will matter as much as adding more hours; the paper's own limitations section acknowledges that the method coverage is incomplete and time-sensitive.
  • The cross-lingual result suggests that collecting fake audio in every target language may be unnecessary if a multilingual self-supervised encoder is used, which could lower the cost of extending detection to low-resource languages.
  • A natural next experiment the paper does not run is a direct comparison against other large recent datasets such as ASVspoof5 under equal training budgets, which would separate the contribution of dataset composition from total scale.
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 introduces SpeechFake, a large-scale multilingual speech deepfake dataset containing over 3 million fake utterances (more than 3,000 hours) generated by 40 speech synthesis tools, split into a Bilingual Dataset (English/Chinese) and a Multilingual Dataset (46 languages). The authors provide a detailed description of data collection, statistics, and metadata, and present baseline experiments with AASIST and W2V+AASIST. The central claim is that models trained on SpeechFake generalize substantially better to unseen deepfake test sets than models trained on ASVspoof2019, supported by large EER reductions on WaveFake, In-the-Wild, and CD-ADD, along with analyses of cross-generator, cross-lingual, and cross-speaker robustness.

Significance. If the dataset is released and the generalization claims hold, SpeechFake would be a valuable community resource due to its scale, diversity of generation methods (including recent TTS/VC/NV tools), multilingual coverage, and rich metadata. The paper includes several controlled experiments (cross-generator, cross-lingual, cross-speaker) and provides training details in the appendix. The external generalization result is important for deepfake detection research. However, the central 'unseen generalization' claim currently rests on external test sets whose method overlap with the training data is not analyzed, and the headline numbers lack error bars; these issues need to be addressed before the claims are fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Table 2 / Abstract] The claim that models trained on SpeechFake generalize to 'unseen' test sets is not fully supported for WaveFake, because the WaveFake test set contains six neural vocoders (MelGAN, Multi-band MelGAN, Parallel WaveGAN, HiFi-GAN, WaveGlow, StyleMelGAN; see Frank and Schönherr, 2021), and five of those architectures (MelGAN, Parallel WaveGAN, HiFi-GAN, WaveGlow, StyleMelGAN; Table 8) also appear in the SpeechFake BD training data. The WaveFake column therefore largely measures recognition of seen artifact-generating architectures, not generalization to a truly unseen method. Please provide a systematic overlap analysis for all external test sets (WF, ITW, CDADD, ASV24, FOR, CFAD) and either remove overlapping generators from training, evaluate on per-method subsets, or explicitly qualify the 'unseen' wording.
  2. [Section 4.1 / Table 6 and Tables 2-3] All headline EER results in Tables 2 and 3 come from a single training run (Table 6 reports '1 run' for the main experiments). The cross-speaker experiments in Section 4.5 do report standard deviations across three runs, so the infrastructure to report means and variances exists. Given that some external-test EER differences (e.g., the W2V+AASIST row in Table 2) are small, single-run numbers are insufficient to establish the claimed ranking. Please report multiple-seed averages with standard deviations for the main comparisons, or provide a stability analysis.
  3. [Section 4.2 / Table 7 and Section 4.5] The main BD train/dev/test partition is not documented as speaker-disjoint for either real or fake data. The dedicated cross-speaker trials in Section 4.5 (where the authors explicitly construct seen/unseen speaker settings) suggest that the default partition does not guarantee speaker separation. If speakers overlap between training and the BD test sets, internal EERs such as BD 3.48 and BD-EN 3.98 in Table 2 may be optimistic, and cross-lingual or cross-generator comparisons could be confounded by speaker identity. Please clarify whether speakers are disjoint in BD and MD splits; if they are not, re-run the affected experiments with a speaker-disjoint split or state this limitation explicitly.
  4. [Section 3.1 (Data Post-processing)] The quality-filtering step ('a selective human review is conducted to discard generated speech with noticeable distortions, excessive noise, or unnatural artifacts') is described only qualitatively, without specifying the number of human reviewers, the sampling procedure beyond 'approximately 1% of samples from each method', or any inter-annotator agreement. The paper also does not test whether this filtering systematically biases the dataset toward easy-to-detect utterances, which would weaken the usefulness of the dataset for training robust detectors. Please provide more detail on the human review protocol and, ideally, an analysis of how filtering affects detection difficulty.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.3] The explanation for NV underperformance is unclear: the text says NV models 'often rely on older methods that generate lower-quality deepfakes, making detection more challenging for models trained on NV data.' Lower-quality synthesized speech should generally make fake samples more distinguishable; please clarify the intended mechanism (e.g., that the model learns low-quality artifacts that do not transfer to high-quality TTS).
  2. [Section 4.2] The phrase '50%-80% better performance' is ambiguous; Table 2 reports EER reductions, so please define the relative improvement metric (e.g., relative EER reduction) and state it explicitly.
  3. [Table 1] The 'Generator Types' column uses inconsistent separators (e.g., 'TTS, VC' vs 'TTS, VC, AT'); please standardize the formatting and verify the counts for ASVspoof2015 and other rows.
  4. [Section 3.1 / Appendix A.2] The abstract uses 'voice id' while the metadata section uses 'Speaker/Voice ID'; please unify the terminology across the paper.
  5. [Appendix B.2 / Figure 5] The caption states 'Eight latest generation methods were selected' but the figure is not visible in the provided text; please ensure the figure is included and legible, and specify which methods are shown.
  6. [References] Some references have informal author names (e.g., 'gil Lee et al., 2023' for BigVGAN) and incomplete entries; please correct the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dataset paper's generalization claims rest on external benchmark measurements and held-out evaluations, not on self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This is a dataset-construction and empirical-baseline paper. There is no derivation chain in which a fitted parameter or an assumed equation is later renamed as a prediction. The central generalization claim in Section 4.2 is evaluated on independent external corpora (ASVspoof2019, FakeOrReal, WaveFake, In-the-Wild, CD-ADD, ASVspoof5) and on the held-out BD-UT commercial-API set, and the EER numbers are measured rather than derived from model assumptions. No parameter is fitted to the external test sets and then reported as a prediction, and no internal equation is used to define the outcome. The paper also reports genuinely held-out configurations, such as the BD-UT set created from commercial APIs not used in training. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems; references to prior datasets, models, and generation toolkits are standard contextual citations. The possible overlap between some external test generators (for example, WaveFake's six neural vocoders and the BD-NV tools listed in Table 8) is a benchmark-design or generalization-interpretation concern, not a circularity: the paper does not define 'unseen' in a way that makes the external result true by construction, and the comparison against ASVspoof19-trained models is an empirical contrast that could have failed. Therefore, no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of the synthetic audio and the suitability of the real speech corpora. No new theoretical entities are introduced. The free parameters are design choices in dataset construction and experimental setup.

free parameters (3)
  • Quality filtering thresholds (VAD duration cutoff and human review sampling rate) = 0.5 seconds; 1% of samples
    Chosen by hand to ensure quality; may remove hard-to-detect samples and affect dataset difficulty.
  • Train/dev/test split ratio = 6:1:3
    Chosen to balance trials; not justified by theory, affects reported EERs.
  • Text length constraint = 5-30 words for English
    Used for TTS input; affects naturalness and duration distribution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The real speech datasets (LibriTTS, VCTK, AISHELL1/3, CommonVoice) are representative of natural speech across languages and recording conditions.
    Used as source of real audio and text; if these corpora are not representative, the dataset's ability to improve real-world detection is limited.
  • domain assumption The generated audio can be publicly released under the stated licenses.
    The authors reviewed licenses; this is a legal/social assumption not verified in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The VAD filtering and human review do not systematically bias the dataset toward easy-to-detect samples.
    The post-processing pipeline is specific to this paper; if biased, detection results may be inflated.
  • domain assumption The taxonomy of generation methods into TTS, VC, NV based on input modality is sufficient for analyzing deepfake detection.
    Used in cross-generator experiments; other taxonomies might yield different conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SpeechFake: A Large-Scale Multilingual Speech Deepfake Dataset Incorporating Cutting-Edge Generation Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DK2FZRZ7

@misc{pith2026250721463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SpeechFake: A Large-Scale Multilingual Speech Deepfake Dataset Incorporating Cutting-Edge Generation Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DK2FZRZ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21463}
}
read the original abstract

As speech generation technology advances, the risk of misuse through deepfake audio has become a pressing concern, which underscores the critical need for robust detection systems. However, many existing speech deepfake datasets are limited in scale and diversity, making it challenging to train models that can generalize well to unseen deepfakes. To address these gaps, we introduce SpeechFake, a large-scale dataset designed specifically for speech deepfake detection. SpeechFake includes over 3 million deepfake samples, totaling more than 3,000 hours of audio, generated using 40 different speech synthesis tools. The dataset encompasses a wide range of generation techniques, including text-to-speech, voice conversion, and neural vocoder, incorporating the latest cutting-edge methods. It also provides multilingual support, spanning 46 languages. In this paper, we offer a detailed overview of the dataset's creation, composition, and statistics. We also present baseline results by training detection models on SpeechFake, demonstrating strong performance on both its own test sets and various unseen test sets. Additionally, we conduct experiments to rigorously explore how generation methods, language diversity, and speaker variation affect detection performance. We believe SpeechFake will be a valuable resource for advancing speech deepfake detection and developing more robust models for evolving generation techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21463 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Classification of speech generation methods in SpeechFake based on input modality during inference. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the SpeechFake dataset. The dataset is divided into two parts: the Bilingual Dataset and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of speech generation methods in SpeechFake-BD. Some data is hidden in experiment trials to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of speaker gender, language, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-evaluation performance (EER%) of models trained on subsets with individual generation methods, evaluated on their respective test sets. Eight latest generation methods were selected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Henretty, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis M Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2019. Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06670

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Sercan Arik, Jitong Chen, Kainan Peng, Wei Ping, and Yanqi Zhou. 2018. Neural voice cloning with a few samples. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Arun Babu, Changhan Wang, Andros Tjandra, Kushal Lakhotia, Qiantong Xu, Naman Goyal, Kritika Singh, Patrick Von Platen, Yatharth Saraf, Juan Pino, et al. 2021. Xls-r: Self-supervised cross-lingual speech representation learning at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09296

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    James Betker. 2023. Better speech synthesis through scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07243

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Hui Bu, Jiayu Du, Xingyu Na, Bengu Wu, and Hao Zheng. 2017. Aishell-1: An open-source mandarin speech corpus and a speech recognition baseline. In 2017 20th conference of the oriental chapter of the international coordinating committee on speech databases and speech I/O systems and assessment (O-COCOSDA), pages 1--5. IEEE

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Edresson Casanova, Julian Weber, Christopher D Shulby, Arnaldo Candido Junior, Eren G \"o lge, and Moacir A Ponti. 2022. Yourtts: Towards zero-shot multi-speaker tts and zero-shot voice conversion for everyone. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2709--2720. PMLR

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Robert Chesney and Danielle Citron. 2019. Deepfakes and the new disinformation war: The coming age of post-truth geopolitics. Foreign Aff., 98:147

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Jiawei Du, I Lin, I Chiu, Xuanjun Chen, Haibin Wu, Wenze Ren, Yu Tsao, Hung-yi Lee, Jyh-Shing Roger Jang, et al. 2024 a . Dfadd: The diffusion and flow-matching based audio deepfake dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08731

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Zhihao Du, Qian Chen, Shiliang Zhang, Kai Hu, Heng Lu, Yexin Yang, Hangrui Hu, Siqi Zheng, Yue Gu, Ziyang Ma, et al. 2024 b . Cosyvoice: A scalable multilingual zero-shot text-to-speech synthesizer based on supervised semantic tokens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05407

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Joel Frank and Lea Sch \"o nherr. 2021. WaveFake: A Data Set to Facilitate Audio Deepfake Detection . In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track

    2021

  3. [11]

    Sang gil Lee, Wei Ping, Boris Ginsburg, Bryan Catanzaro, and Sungroh Yoon. 2023. Big VGAN : A universal neural vocoder with large-scale training. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  4. [12]

    Elizabeth Godoy, Olivier Rosec, and Thierry Chonavel. 2011. Voice conversion using dynamic frequency warping with amplitude scaling, for parallel or nonparallel corpora. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 20(4):1313--1323

    2011

  5. [13]

    Hao-Han Guo, Kun Liu, Fei-Yu Shen, Yi-Chen Wu, Feng-Long Xie, Kun Xie, and Kai-Tuo Xu. 2024. Fireredtts: A foundation text-to-speech framework for industry-level generative speech applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03283

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Rongjie Huang, Max WY Lam, Jun Wang, Dan Su, Dong Yu, Yi Ren, and Zhou Zhao. 2022 a . Fastdiff: A fast conditional diffusion model for high-quality speech synthesis. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22 . Intern...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Rongjie Huang, Zhou Zhao, Huadai Liu, Jinglin Liu, Chenye Cui, and Yi Ren. 2022 b . Prodiff: Progressive fast diffusion model for high-quality text-to-speech. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 2595--2605

    2022

  8. [16]

    Zeqian Ju, Yuancheng Wang, Kai Shen, Xu Tan, Detai Xin, Dongchao Yang, Yanqing Liu, Yichong Leng, Kaitao Song, Siliang Tang, et al. 2024. Naturalspeech 3: Zero-shot speech synthesis with factorized codec and diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03100

    2024 arXiv

  9. [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

  10. [18]

    Jee-weon Jung, Yihan Wu, Xin Wang, Ji-Hoon Kim, Soumi Maiti, Yuta Matsunaga, Hye-jin Shim, Jinchuan Tian, Nicholas Evans, Joon Son Chung, et al. 2025. Spoofceleb: Speech deepfake detection and sasv in the wild. IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing

    2025

  11. [19]

    Takuhiro Kaneko and Hirokazu Kameoka. 2018. Cyclegan-vc: Non-parallel voice conversion using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In 2018 26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), pages 2100--2104. IEEE

    2018

  12. [20]

    Jaehyeon Kim, Sungwon Kim, Jungil Kong, and Sungroh Yoon. 2020. Glow-tts: A generative flow for text-to-speech via monotonic alignment search. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:8067--8077

    2020

  13. [21]

    Jaehyeon Kim, Jungil Kong, and Juhee Son. 2021. Conditional variational autoencoder with adversarial learning for end-to-end text-to-speech. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5530--5540. PMLR

    2021

  14. [22]

    Jungil Kong, Jaehyeon Kim, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:17022--17033

    2020

  15. [23]

    Pavel Korshunov and S \'e bastien Marcel. 2018. Deepfakes: a new threat to face recognition? assessment and detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08685

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kundan Kumar, Rithesh Kumar, Thibault De Boissiere, Lucas Gestin, Wei Zhen Teoh, Jose Sotelo, Alexandre De Brebisson, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron C Courville. 2019. Melgan: Generative adversarial networks for conditional waveform synthesis. Advances in neural information processi...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Naihan Li, Shujie Liu, Yanqing Liu, Sheng Zhao, and Ming Liu. 2019. Neural speech synthesis with transformer network. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 6706--6713

    2019

  18. [26]

    Xinfeng Li, Kai Li, Yifan Zheng, Chen Yan, Xiaoyu Ji, and Wenyuan Xu. 2024 a . SafeEar: Content Privacy-Preserving Audio Deepfake Detection . In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Yinghao Aaron Li, Cong Han, Vinay Raghavan, Gavin Mischler, and Nima Mesgarani. 2024 b . Styletts 2: Towards human-level text-to-speech through style diffusion and adversarial training with large speech language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  20. [28]

    Yinghao Aaron Li, Ali Zare, and Nima Mesgarani. 2021. Starganv2-vc: A diverse, unsupervised, non-parallel framework for natural-sounding voice conversion. In Interspeech 2021, pages 1349--1353

    2021

  21. [29]

    Yuang Li, Min Zhang, Mengxin Ren, Miaomiao Ma, Daimeng Wei, and Hao Yang. 2024 c . Cross-domain audio deepfake detection: Dataset and analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04904

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Shijia Liao, Yuxuan Wang, Tianyu Li, Yifan Cheng, Ruoyi Zhang, Rongzhi Zhou, and Yijin Xing. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01156 Fish-speech: Leveraging large language models for advanced multilingual text-to-speech synthesis . Preprint, arXiv:2411.01156

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Songting Liu. 2024. Zero-shot voice conversion with diffusion transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09943

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Songxiang Liu, Dan Su, and Dong Yu. 2022. Diffgan-tts: High-fidelity and efficient text-to-speech with denoising diffusion gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11972

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Dan Lyth and Simon King. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01912 Natural language guidance of high-fidelity text-to-speech with synthetic annotations . Preprint, arXiv:2402.01912

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Haoxin Ma, Jiangyan Yi, Chenglong Wang, Xinrui Yan, Jianhua Tao, Tao Wang, Shiming Wang, and Ruibo Fu. 2024. Cfad: A chinese dataset for fake audio detection. Speech Communication, 164:103122

    2024

  27. [35]

    u ller, Piotr Kawa, Wei Herng Choong, Edresson Casanova, Eren G \

    Nicolas M M \"u ller, Piotr Kawa, Wei Herng Choong, Edresson Casanova, Eren G \"o lge, Thorsten M \"u ller, Piotr Syga, Philip Sperl, and Konstantin B \"o ttinger. 2024. Mlaad: The multi-language audio anti-spoofing dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09512

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ahmed Mustafa, Nicola Pia, and Guillaume Fuchs. 2021. Stylemelgan: An efficient high-fidelity adversarial vocoder with temporal adaptive normalization. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6034--6038. IEEE

    2021

  29. [37]

    Nicolas Müller, Pavel Czempin, Franziska Diekmann, Adam Froghyar, and Konstantin Böttinger. 2022. Does audio deepfake detection generalize? In Interspeech 2022, pages 2783--2787

    2022

  30. [38]

    Andreas Nautsch, Xin Wang, Nicholas Evans, Tomi H Kinnunen, Ville Vestman, Massimiliano Todisco, Hector Delgado, Md Sahidullah, Junichi Yamagishi, and Kong Aik Lee. 2021. Asvspoof 2019: Spoofing countermeasures for the detection of synthesized, converted and replayed speech. I...

    2021

  31. [40]

    Michele Panariello, Wanying Ge, Hemlata Tak, Massimiliano Todisco, and Nicholas Evans. 2023. Malafide: a novel adversarial convolutive noise attack against deepfake and spoofing detection systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07655

    2023 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Vadim Popov, Ivan Vovk, Vladimir Gogoryan, Tasnima Sadekova, and Mikhail Kudinov. 2021. Grad-tts: A diffusion probabilistic model for text-to-speech. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8599--8608. PMLR

    2021

  33. [42]

    Ryan Prenger, Rafael Valle, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2019. Waveglow: A flow-based generative network for speech synthesis. In ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 3617--3621. IEEE

    2019

  34. [43]

    Zengyi Qin, Wenliang Zhao, Xumin Yu, and Xin Sun. 2023. Openvoice: Versatile instant voice cloning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01479

    2023 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Ricardo Reimao and Vassilios Tzerpos. 2019. For: A dataset for synthetic speech detection. In 2019 International Conference on Speech Technology and Human-Computer Dialogue (SpeD), pages 1--10. IEEE

    2019

  36. [45]

    Yi Ren, Chenxu Hu, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Sheng Zhao, Zhou Zhao, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2021 a . Fastspeech 2: Fast and high-quality end-to-end text to speech. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  37. [46]

    Yi Ren, Jinglin Liu, and Zhou Zhao. 2021 b . Portaspeech: Portable and high-quality generative text-to-speech. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:13963--13974

    2021

  38. [47]

    Jonathan Shen, Ruoming Pang, Ron J Weiss, Mike Schuster, Navdeep Jaitly, Zongheng Yang, Zhifeng Chen, Yu Zhang, Yuxuan Wang, Rj Skerrv-Ryan, et al. 2018. Natural tts synthesis by conditioning wavenet on mel spectrogram predictions. In 2018 IEEE international conference on acou...

    2018

  39. [48]

    Yao Shi, Hui Bu, Xin Xu, Shaoji Zhang, and Ming Li. 2020. Aishell-3: A multi-speaker mandarin tts corpus and the baselines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11567

    2020 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Catherine Stupp. 2019. Fraudsters used ai to mimic ceo’s voice in unusual cybercrime case. The Wall Street Journal, 30(08)

    2019

  41. [50]

    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. In The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop

    2022

  42. [51]

    Pablo Andrés Tamayo Flórez , Rubén Manrique, and Bernardo Pereira Nunes . 2023. Habla: A dataset of latin american spanish accents for voice anti-spoofing. In INTERSPEECH 2023, pages 1963--1967

    2023

  43. [52]

    Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Frank Soong, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2021. A survey on neural speech synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.15561

    2021 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Massimiliano Todisco, Michele Panariello, Xin Wang, Hector Delgado, Kong Aik Lee, and Nicholas Evans. 2024. Malacopula: Adversarial automatic speaker verification attacks using a neural-based generalised hammerstein model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09300

    2024 arXiv

  45. [54]

    o rn W Schuller, G \

    Andreas Triantafyllopoulos, Bj \"o rn W Schuller, G \"o k c e \.I ymen, Metin Sezgin, Xiangheng He, Zijiang Yang, Panagiotis Tzirakis, Shuo Liu, Silvan Mertes, Elisabeth Andr \'e , et al. 2023. An overview of affective speech synthesis and conversion in the deep learning era. ...

    2023

  46. [55]

    Aaron Van Den Oord, Sander Dieleman, Heiga Zen, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, Nal Kalchbrenner, Andrew Senior, Koray Kavukcuoglu, et al. 2016. Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499, 12

    2016 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Christophe Veaux, Junichi Yamagishi, and Simon King. 2013. The voice bank corpus: Design, collection and data analysis of a large regional accent speech database. In 2013 international conference oriental COCOSDA held jointly with 2013 conference on Asian spoken language resea...

    2013

  48. [57]

    Chengyi Wang, Sanyuan Chen, Yu Wu, Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Yanqing Liu, Huaming Wang, Jinyu Li, et al. 2023. Neural codec language models are zero-shot text to speech synthesizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.02111

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Xin Wang, Hector Delgado, Hemlata Tak, Jee-weon Jung, Hye-jin Shim, Massimiliano Todisco, Ivan Kukanov, Xuechen Liu, Md Sahidullah, Tomi Kinnunen, et al. 2024. Asvspoof 5: Crowdsourced speech data, deepfakes, and adversarial attacks at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08739

    2024 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Xin Wang and Junichi Yamagishi. 2023. Spoofed training data for speech spoofing countermeasure can be efficiently created using neural vocoders. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1--5. IEEE

    2023

  51. [60]

    Xin Wang and Junichi Yamagishi. 2024. Can large-scale vocoded spoofed data improve speech spoofing countermeasure with a self-supervised front end? In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 10311--10315. IEEE

    2024

  52. [61]

    Skerry-Ryan, Daisy Stanton, Yonghui Wu, Ron J

    Yuxuan Wang, R.J. Skerry-Ryan, Daisy Stanton, Yonghui Wu, Ron J. Weiss, Navdeep Jaitly, Zongheng Yang, Ying Xiao, Zhifeng Chen, Samy Bengio, Quoc Le, Yannis Agiomyrgiannakis, Rob Clark, and Rif A. Saurous. 2017. Tacotron: Towards end-to-end speech synthesis. In Interspeech 201...

    2017

  53. [62]

    Zhizheng Wu, Tomi Kinnunen, Nicholas Evans, and Junichi Yamagishi. 2014. Asvspoof 2015: Automatic speaker verification spoofing and countermeasures challenge evaluation plan. Training, 10(15):3750

    2014

  54. [63]

    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. In ASVspoof 2021 Workshop-Autom...

    2021

  55. [64]

    Ryuichi Yamamoto, Eunwoo Song, and Jae-Min Kim. 2020. Parallel wavegan: A fast waveform generation model based on generative adversarial networks with multi-resolution spectrogram. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (IC...

    2020

  56. [65]

    Ziwei Yan, Yanjie Zhao, and Haoyu Wang. 2024. Voicewukong: Benchmarking deepfake voice detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06348

    2024 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Geng Yang, Shan Yang, Kai Liu, Peng Fang, Wei Chen, and Lei Xie. 2021. Multi-band melgan: Faster waveform generation for high-quality text-to-speech. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 492--498. IEEE

    2021

  58. [67]

    Jiangyan Yi, Ruibo Fu, Jianhua Tao, Shuai Nie, Haoxin Ma, Chenglong Wang, Tao Wang, Zhengkun Tian, Ye Bai, Cunhang Fan, et al. 2022. Add 2022: the first audio deep synthesis detection challenge. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal ...

    2022

  59. [68]

    Jiangyan Yi, Chu Yuan Zhang, Jianhua Tao, Chenglong Wang, Xinrui Yan, Yong Ren, Hao Gu, and Junzuo Zhou. 2024. Add 2023: Towards audio deepfake detection and analysis in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04967

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Heiga Zen, Viet Dang, Rob Clark, Yu Zhang, Ron J Weiss, Ye Jia, Zhifeng Chen, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. Libritts: A corpus derived from librispeech for text-to-speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02882

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.