Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Sound Check: Auditing Audio Datasets

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 2410.13114 v1 pith:J4BIII6N submitted 2024-10-17 cs.SD cs.AIcs.CYeess.AS

classification cs.SDcs.AIcs.CYeess.AS
keywords audiodatasetsgenerativemodelscontainexplorationissuestool
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative audio models are rapidly advancing in both capabilities and public utilization -- several powerful generative audio models have readily available open weights, and some tech companies have released high quality generative audio products. Yet, while prior work has enumerated many ethical issues stemming from the data on which generative visual and textual models have been trained, we have little understanding of similar issues with generative audio datasets, including those related to bias, toxicity, and intellectual property. To bridge this gap, we conducted a literature review of hundreds of audio datasets and selected seven of the most prominent to audit in more detail. We found that these datasets are biased against women, contain toxic stereotypes about marginalized communities, and contain significant amounts of copyrighted work. To enable artists to see if they are in popular audio datasets and facilitate exploration of the contents of these datasets, we developed a web tool audio datasets exploration tool at https://audio-audit.vercel.app.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Who Gets Flagged? The Pluralistic Evaluation Gap in AI Content Watermarking

    cs.CY 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Major watermarking benchmarks omit cross-lingual, cultural, and demographic reporting, creating a pluralistic evaluation gap that current governance mandates ignore.

  2. PRAC3 (Privacy, Reputation, Accountability, Consent, Credit, Compensation): Long Tailed Risks of Voice Actors in AI Data-Economy

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Interviews with 20 voice actors reveal risks beyond consent, credit, and compensation, leading to a PRAC3 framework that adds privacy, reputation, and accountability.

Pith tools