REVIEW 6 cited by
Measuring the Robustness of Audio Deepfake Detection under Real-World Corruption
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
Measuring the Robustness of Audio Deepfake Detection under Real-World Corruption
read the original abstract
Deepfakes have emerged as a widespread and rapidly escalating concern in generative AI, spanning images, audio, and videos. Among these, audio deepfakes are particularly alarming due to the growing accessibility of high-quality voice synthesis tools and the ease with which synthetic speech can be distributed through social media and robocalls. Consequently, detecting audio deepfakes is critical for combating the misuse of AI-generated speech. However, real-world audio is often affected by corruptions such as noise, audio modification, and compression, which can significantly degrade detection performance. In this work, we systematically evaluate the robustness of 10 audio deepfake detection models against 18 common corruption types, grouped into three categories: noise perturbation, audio modification, and compression. Using both traditional deep learning models and state-of-the-art speech foundation models, our study yields four key insights. (1) Most models are robust to noise but remain vulnerable to audio modifications and compression, especially neural codecs. (2) Speech foundation models consistently outperform traditional models across most corruption scenarios, likely due to large-scale pre-training on diverse audio datasets. (3) Increasing model size improves robustness, although the gains diminish as models become larger. (4) Robustness to unseen corruptions can be improved through targeted data augmentation during training or speech enhancement at inference time. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating audio deepfake detectors under diverse real-world corruptions and developing more robust detection frameworks for practical deployment. We further advocate that future research on deepfake detection across all media should account for the diverse and unpredictable distortions encountered in real-world environments.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
FoeGlass: Simple In-Context Learning Is Enough for Red Teaming Audio Deepfake Detectors
FoeGlass is a black-box red-teaming method that leverages LLM in-context learning with diversity-based prompting to generate adversarial audio samples, raising false negative rates of ADD models by up to 94% over baselines.
-
Alethia: A Foundational Encoder for Voice Deepfakes
Alethia is a pretrained audio encoder using continuous embedding prediction and generative flow-matching reconstruction that outperforms existing speech foundation models on voice deepfake tasks with better robustness...
-
Proteus: Automated Adversarial Robustness Testing for Audio Deepfake Detectors
Proteus automates discovery of audio transformation chains that evade deepfake detectors using BFS and Q-learning, then uses the results to retrain the detector.
-
RADAR Challenge 2026: Robust Audio Deepfake Recognition under Media Transformations
The RADAR Challenge 2026 provides a multilingual benchmark for audio deepfake detection under media transformations and finds that robust performance remains an open problem.
-
RADAR Challenge 2026: Robust Audio Deepfake Recognition under Media Transformations
RADAR Challenge 2026 describes a benchmark with over 100,000 multilingual utterances and media transformations for audio deepfake detection, reporting results from 22 teams that highlight ongoing robustness issues.
-
RADAR Challenge 2026: Robust Audio Deepfake Recognition under Media Transformations
RADAR Challenge 2026 organizes a multilingual audio deepfake detection benchmark with media transformations, reporting participation from 33 development and 22 evaluation teams using EER metric.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.