Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

VoiceWukong: Benchmarking Deepfake Voice Detection

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.06348 v1 pith:I5HHOY5Q submitted 2024-09-10 cs.SD cs.AIcs.CReess.AS

VoiceWukong: Benchmarking Deepfake Voice Detection

classification cs.SD cs.AIcs.CReess.AS
keywords deepfakedetectorsvoicevoicewukongdetectionperformancevoicesbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

With the rapid advancement of technologies like text-to-speech (TTS) and voice conversion (VC), detecting deepfake voices has become increasingly crucial. However, both academia and industry lack a comprehensive and intuitive benchmark for evaluating detectors. Existing datasets are limited in language diversity and lack many manipulations encountered in real-world production environments. To fill this gap, we propose VoiceWukong, a benchmark designed to evaluate the performance of deepfake voice detectors. To build the dataset, we first collected deepfake voices generated by 19 advanced and widely recognized commercial tools and 15 open-source tools. We then created 38 data variants covering six types of manipulations, constructing the evaluation dataset for deepfake voice detection. VoiceWukong thus includes 265,200 English and 148,200 Chinese deepfake voice samples. Using VoiceWukong, we evaluated 12 state-of-the-art detectors. AASIST2 achieved the best equal error rate (EER) of 13.50%, while all others exceeded 20%. Our findings reveal that these detectors face significant challenges in real-world applications, with dramatically declining performance. In addition, we conducted a user study with more than 300 participants. The results are compared with the performance of the 12 detectors and a multimodel large language model (MLLM), i.e., Qwen2-Audio, where different detectors and humans exhibit varying identification capabilities for deepfake voices at different deception levels, while the LALM demonstrates no detection ability at all. Furthermore, we provide a leaderboard for deepfake voice detection, publicly available at {https://voicewukong.github.io}.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Multi-Backbone Self-Supervised Ensembles for Audio Deepfake Detection and a Cross-Track Analysis of Generation-Detection Asymmetry

    cs.SD 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    A four-backbone SSL ensemble achieves near-perfect deepfake detection in the ImageCLEF 2026 track, while the same team's generated audio ranks first in the generation track, revealing an OR-versus-AND asymmetry betwee...

  2. VoxENES 2026: Benchmarking Generalization of Speech Spoofing Detectors Against LLM-Era TTS and Voice Conversion

    cs.SD 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Pretrained spoofing detectors reach at best 28.98% EER on a new English-Spanish benchmark of 10 LLM-era TTS/VC systems under 10 post-processing conditions, with most near chance.