Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 43 references

WaveVerify: A Novel Audio Watermarking Framework for Media Authentication and Combatting Deepfakes

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 WaveVerify adds an inaudible watermark to speech across multiple frequency bands and time scales, then recovers it perfectly after filtering, resampling, speed changes, reversal, and shuffling, with near-perfect localization of…

desk verdict The FiLM/MoE/scheduler combination is genuinely new and the reversal robustness claim is worth testing, but the zero-BER headline is unverifiable as written because the bit-alignment protocol is never specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21150 v1 pith:X7QL4BYA submitted 2025-07-23 cs.CR

Aditya Pujari , Ajita Rattani This is my paper
classification cs.CR
keywords audiowatermarkingdeepfakedetectionmediaauthenticationFeature-wiseLinearModulationMixture-of-Expertstemporalrobustnessbiterrorratewatermarklocalization
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 WaveVerify, an audio watermarking system that tries to establish a new robustness ceiling for speech authentication: embed an inaudible watermark into speech and recover every bit after common distortions (high-pass/low-pass/band-pass filtering, resampling, speed change, noise, MP3/AAC compression, quantization) and locate the watermarked regions almost perfectly even after reversal, rotation, segment shuffling, and removal of up to 90% of the audio. The system combines a Feature-wise Linear Modulation (FiLM) generator that spreads watermark information across frequency bands and temporal scales, a Mixture-of-Experts detector for extraction, and a separate lightweight locator for sample-level region identification. Reported results claim zero Bit Error Rate under common distortions, MIoU above 0.98 under severe temporal modifications, and roughly 80% faster training than sequential embedding. If these claims hold, media platforms could verify voice clips and trace deepfake content without degrading speech quality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Feature-wise Linear Modulation (FiLM), defined as $\mathbf{F}' = \gamma \odot \mathbf{F} + \beta$, applied without normalization at multiple encoder layers and across channel-partitioned frequency bands; it replaces fixed vector repetition with adaptive per-band scaling and shifting. Around it sit two trained networks: a Mixture-of-Experts detector whose output is the Hadamard-weighted sum $\sum_i \sigma(W_g^{(i)} z) \odot f_i(z)$ over four expert sub-networks, and a locator tuned for sample-level temporal alignment ($\pm 2$ samples at 16 kHz, 50 ms windows). A dynamic effect scheduler, updated by exponential moving averages of BER and MIoU, chooses which distortions to apply in each training step, including temporal augmentations (reversal, rotation, segment shuffling) that force the model to learn position-invariant features. The training objective combines waveform, multi-scale STFT, and mel reconstruction losses, masked binary cross-entropy losses for detection and localization, and multi-scale adversarial and feature-matching losses.

What would settle it

Take a watermarked clip, reverse it, and attempt bit extraction using only the public extractor with a fixed, pre-registered message alignment and no oracle re-synchronization; if BER rises above 0.00, the claim of reversal-robust zero BER does not hold. Similarly, remove 50% of samples uniformly at random rather than as whole segments and compute MIoU; if localization accuracy drops below the reported 0.98, the localization claim holds only for contiguous-segment removal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that a watermark can be made position-independent and band-independent. By applying FiLM at multiple hierarchical layers and partitioning feature channels into frequency bands, the generator makes the message redundant across time and spectrum, so no single segment or spectral region is required for recovery. The detector's MoE decoder learns a gated combination of specialized experts that handle different distortions, while a dynamic effect scheduler re-weights training augmentations according to live BER and MIoU. The paper reports that this combination beats AudioSeal and WavMark on bit error rate and localization under identity, resampling, filtering, speed, combined effects, and temporal reordering attacks, and maintains MIoU at or above 0.98 even after randomly removing 10% to 90% of contiguous watermarked segments. It also reports perfect speech intelligibility (STOI = 1.00) with ViSQOL = 4.76.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes the detector can recover and align the watermark bits after time reversal, rotation, shuffling, and segment removal without any side information or oracle alignment; the paper never specifies the message length $n$, the bit-to-sample alignment, or the embedding rate, so the zero-BER numbers depend on an unstated synchronization assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported BER of 0.00 under common distortions is accurate, watermarked speech can pass through standard streaming pipelines such as resampling, compression, and filtering and still be verified bit-for-bit.
  • Sample-level localization with MIoU at or above 0.98 after reversal, shuffling, and heavy segment removal would let forensic tools pinpoint which fragments of a clip came from a signed recording, even after manual editing.
  • Because the message is spread over both time and frequency, no single spectral notch such as high-pass filtering at 3.5 kHz removes enough watermark energy to stop detection, closing a known gap in AudioSeal and WavMark.
  • The claimed 80% training-time reduction from parallel FiLM embedding over sequential bottleneck embedding would make robust watermarking practical on more modest hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves the message length $n$ and the bit-to-sample alignment unspecified, so a fair reproduction must fix a synchronization protocol before comparing BER under reversal; a natural extension is to measure how BER degrades as $n$ grows toward the embedding capacity.
  • The removal test deletes whole contiguous segments, leaving the remainder fully watermarked; a stronger localization test would remove samples uniformly and then require the locator to mark only the surviving watermarked samples, which would reveal whether MIoU stays high when unwatermarked gaps remain.
  • The MoE gating weights could be analyzed post hoc to see which expert activates under which distortion type, turning a robustness result into an explainable tamper-attribution signal.
  • The dynamic effect scheduler is domain-agnostic and could be transferred to music or environmental audio by retraining the same pipeline on non-speech corpora, where the same temporal and spectral attacks apply.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. WaveVerify proposes a deep-learning audio watermarking system for media authentication, comprising a FiLM-based generator for multiband watermark embedding, a Mixture-of-Experts detector for message extraction, a lightweight locator for sample-level watermark localization, and a dynamic augmentation/effect scheduler for robustness training. The paper reports that WaveVerify outperforms AudioSeal and WavMark, achieving zero BER under common distortions, MIoU above 0.98 under severe temporal modifications, high robustness to combined attacks and partial watermark removal, and roughly 80% training-time reduction relative to bottleneck-based alternatives. Evaluation is carried out across LibriSpeech, Common Voice, CMU ARCTIC, and DiPCo, with cross-domain tests on RAVDESS and ASVspoof 2019, using BER, MIoU, PESQ, STOI, ViSQOL, and SISNR metrics.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, WaveVerify would make a meaningful advance in audio watermarking robustness, particularly for temporal attacks and fine-grained localization, with direct relevance to deepfake audio authentication. The paper's strengths include a unified training framework with adaptive augmentation scheduling, evaluation on multiple speaker-disjoint and cross-domain datasets, and the inclusion of statistical significance statements. However, the central claims currently rest on an underspecified bit-recovery protocol and an ill-posed partial-removal experiment, so the significance cannot be fully assessed without a major revision that pins down the metric definitions and reports standard deviations as promised.

major comments (5)
  1. [3.2, 5.4] The BER results under temporal attacks are not reproducible as reported because the payload and bit-to-sample alignment are never defined. Section 3.2 introduces an 'n-bit watermark sequence' but does not give n, the embedding rate, or how bits are assigned to audio samples, and Section 5.4 reports zero BER after reversal, circular shifting, and shuffling without describing any synchronization, side information, or bit-order alignment procedure. To compute BER after these transformations, the extracted bit order must be compared with the embedded bit order under a well-defined mapping. The authors must specify the payload length, the bit-to-sample assignment, and the exact inference-time alignment protocol used for each temporal attack; otherwise the headline zero-BER result cannot be verified or falsified.
  2. [5.5, Figure 4] The partial-removal experiment appears ill-posed for the MIoU metric as described. Section 5.5 states that 'segments of watermarked audio were randomly removed' but does not state whether the removed regions are deleted (so the remaining audio is entirely watermarked) or replaced with non-watermarked content. If the remaining audio is entirely watermarked, a locator that predicts every sample as watermarked achieves an MIoU of 1.0, making the reported MIoU of 0.98+ uninformative for localization precision. The protocol must specify the ground-truth mask after removal and report MIoU against a mask that includes unwatermarked regions if any are present.
  3. [5.1, Tables 2-4] The statistical reporting is inconsistent with the stated protocol. Section 5 states that all experiments are repeated in triplicate and results are reported as mean±SD, but Table 1 and all rows of Tables 2-4 list single point values (e.g., MIoU 0.985, TPR 1.000, PESQ 4.34) with no standard deviations. The authors should either add SDs to every reported value or revise the claim that all results are reported as mean±SD.
  4. [3.1] The statement that training-time comparison with AudioSeal is infeasible due to 'the lack of publicly available or executable implementation code' is factually incorrect: AudioSeal's official implementation is publicly available. This error weakens the credibility of the efficiency comparison and should be corrected, and the direct comparison should be performed or the claim appropriately qualified.
  5. [3.1] The claimed 'approximately 80%' training-time reduction is asserted without any supporting experiment. No wall-clock training times, hardware configuration, or comparison table are provided for the bottleneck-based alternative. This efficiency claim is load-bearing for one of the stated contributions and should be substantiated or removed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and Section 5.4 claim 'MIoU scores of 0.98+' but Table 3 reports combined-attack MIoU values as low as 0.975; the claim should be qualified to the specific attack sets for which it holds.
  2. [Algorithm 1, Eq. (9)] The symbol β is used both as the EMA smoothing factor (β=0.9) and as a Laplace-smoothing constant in Eq. (9); this overloading should be removed by renaming one of the parameters.
  3. [3.3.1, 5.5] The relation between the segment-level augmentations (replacement with non-watermarked audio, silence, or other-source audio) and the partial-removal experiment is unclear; the removal protocol should state which of these operations, if any, was used to generate the test data.
  4. [4.2, Tables 2-4] The paper should clarify whether the 1,000 cross-dataset clips are the same across all effects and all three runs, and it should specify whether the validation set of 50 segments was used only for model selection or also for any reported results.
  5. [Abstract, GitHub URL] The code URL in the abstract contains whitespace and line-breaking characters ('W aveV erify') and should be a single valid URL string.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the watermarking results are empirical benchmarks on held-out speakers and datasets; no claimed derivation reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

WaveVerify is an empirical systems paper; its central claims are benchmark measurements rather than derived predictions. The generator, locator, and detector are trained end-to-end and evaluated on speaker-disjoint held-out sets (LibriSpeech, Common Voice, CMU ARCTIC, DiPCo) plus entirely unseen RAVDESS and ASVspoof 2019 clips, so the reported BER and MIoU values are not fitted to the evaluation data. The dynamic effect scheduler adapts training augmentations using in-training BER/MIoU, which is a training strategy rather than a circular prediction, and the test-time effects are applied to unseen audio. Loss weights and scheduler weights (w1=0.8, w2=0.2) are selected by ablation and are not re-derived from the test results. No equation in the paper defines an evaluation metric in terms of the fitted parameters, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by a self-citation chain. The identified gaps in the manuscript, such as the unspecified message length n and the missing bit-alignment protocol after reversal or shuffling, are specification and reproducibility concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central performance claims rest on a set of hand-chosen architectural and training components (HILCodec backbone, FiLM modulation, MoE routing, scheduler hyperparameters, loss weights). None of these are derived; they are empirical choices. The most consequential unstated parameter is the watermark payload length n, which determines whether the reported zero BER is meaningful.

free parameters (6)
  • Loss weighting coefficients lambda_wave, lambda_spec, lambda_mel, lambda_det, lambda_loc = not reported
    Introduced in Equations 3 and 7; authors state the weights were chosen based on ablation studies, but values are not given in the text, so the exact objective is not reproducible.
  • Scheduler weights w1 and w2 = 0.8 and 0.2
    Appendix B.2, Equation 8; balance BER and MIoU in the dynamic effect scheduler; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • EMA smoothing factor beta = 0.9
    Appendix B.2, Algorithm 1; smooths BER and MIoU for the scheduler; chosen by the authors.
  • Laplace smoothing alpha = 1.0
    Appendix B.2, Equation 9; prevents zero probabilities for parameter exploration.
  • Watermark payload length n = unspecified
    Section 3.2 transforms an n-bit watermark sequence but never states n; BER depends directly on payload length and embedding redundancy.
  • Augmentation parameter ranges (filter cutoffs, noise SNRs, bitrates) = ranges listed in Appendix B.1
    The dynamic scheduler samples parameters from hand-chosen ranges; these ranges define the training distribution and affect reported robustness.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The HILCodec encoder provides a feature representation rich and stable enough to carry and recover a watermark.
    Section 3.2 builds the generator on HILCodec; if the codec's representation is lossy for watermarking purposes, the method's capacity claims fail; no capacity or invertibility analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption FiLM modulation preserves the signal statistics needed for watermark recovery better than normalization-based conditioning.
    Section 3.2 asserts this difference from AdaIN without a direct comparative experiment; the claim is used to justify the architecture choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The dynamic effect scheduler does not overfit the model to the training augmentation distribution and improves robustness to unseen effects.
    Appendix B.2 defines the scheduler; no convergence analysis or out-of-distribution test beyond a few effects (e.g., high-pass 3500 Hz) is provided.
  • domain assumption Sample-level localization can be learned independently of message recovery with a lightweight locator.
    Section 3.4 separates detector and locator; the partial-removal experiment (Section 5.5) assumes the locator can detect watermark presence from local features alone, but the protocol described makes the metric trivial.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WaveVerify: A Novel Audio Watermarking Framework for Media Authentication and Combatting Deepfakes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7QL4BYA

@misc{pith2026250721150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WaveVerify: A Novel Audio Watermarking Framework for Media Authentication and Combatting Deepfakes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7QL4BYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21150}
}
abstract

The rapid advancement of voice generation technologies has enabled the synthesis of speech that is perceptually indistinguishable from genuine human voices. While these innovations facilitate beneficial applications such as personalized text-to-speech systems and voice preservation, they have also introduced significant risks, including deepfake impersonation scams and synthetic media-driven disinformation campaigns. Recent reports indicate that in 2024, deepfake fraud attempts surged by over 1,300% compared to 2023, underscoring the urgent need for robust audio content authentication. The financial sector has been particularly impacted, with a loss of over 10 million USD to voice scams and individual victims reporting losses exceeding $6,000 from AI-generated deepfake calls. In response, regulators and governments worldwide are enacting measures to improve AI content transparency and traceability, emphasizing the development of forensic tools and watermarking techniques as essential strategies to uphold media integrity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21150 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The end-to-end training pipeline of WaveVerify, where a FiLM-based generator embeds bits into speech, followed by tempo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance under temporal sequence attacks. Error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. MIoU under varying levels of partial watermark re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Audiomarkbench: Benchmarking audio watermarking for generative ai. 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Accessed April 21, 2025

    Fraudsters on the line: The rise of call spoofing.The Finan- cial Brand, 2025. Accessed April 21, 2025. 1

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    S. Ahn, B. J. Woo, M. H. Han, C. Moon, and N. S. Kim. Hilcodec: High-fidelity and lightweight neural audio codec,

    work page

  4. [4]

    Anderson

    R. Anderson. Information hiding: First international work- shop cambridge, uk, may 30–june 1, 1996 proceedings. In International Workshop on Information Hiding 1. Springer,

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Ardila, M

    R. Ardila, M. Branson, K. Davis, M. Henretty, M. Kohler, J. Meyer, R. Morais, L. Saunders, F. M. Tyers, and G. We- ber. Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech cor- pus.CoRR, abs/1912.06670, 2019. 6

    arXiv 1912

  6. [6]

    M. Arnold. Phase-based audio watermarking.IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia and Expo, 2:II–235, 2003. 2

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Bartz and K

    D. Bartz and K. Hu. Openai, google, others pledge to water- mark ai content for safety, white house says, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Bassia, I

    P. Bassia, I. Pitas, and N. Nikolaidis. Robust audio water- marking in the time domain.IEEE Transactions on Multi- media, 3(2):232–241, 2001. 2

    work page 2001

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Bengio, J

    Y . Bengio, J. Louradour, R. Collobert, and J. Weston. Cur- riculum learning. InProceedings of the 26th Annual Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pages 41–48, Mon- treal, Quebec, Canada, 2009. ACM. 4

    2009

  2. [10]

    Boney, A

    L. Boney, A. H. Tewfik, and K. N. Hamdy. Digital water- marks for audio signals.IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems, pages 473–480, 1996. 2

    1996

  3. [11]

    Cao et al

    X. Cao et al. Sok: How robust is audio watermarking in gen- erative ai models?arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19176, March

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    G. Chen, Y . Wu, S. Liu, T. Liu, X. Du, and F. Wei. Wav- mark: Watermarking for audio generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12770, 2023. 1, 2, 7

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chinen, F

    M. Chinen, F. S. Lim, J. Skoglund, N. Gureev, F. O’Gorman, and A. Hines. Visqol v3: An open source production ready objective speech and audio metric. In2020 twelfth in- ternational conference on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020. 7

    2020

  6. [14]

    I. Cox, M. Miller, J. Bloom, J. Fridrich, and T. Kalker. Dig- ital watermarking.Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2002. 2, 5

    2002

  7. [15]

    I. J. Cox, J. Kilian, F. T. Leighton, and T. Shamoon. Secure spread spectrum watermarking for multimedia.IEEE trans- actions on image processing, 6(12):1673–1687, 1997. 1, 2

    1997

  8. [16]

    Y . Jia, M. T. Ramanovich, T. Remez, and R. Pomerantz. Translatotron 2: High-quality direct speech-to-speech trans- lation with voice preservation. In K. Chaudhuri, S. Jegelka, L. Song, C. Szepesvari, G. Niu, and S. Sabato, editors,Pro- ceedings of the 39th International Confe...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Kharitonov, D

    E. Kharitonov, D. Vincent, Z. Borsos, R. Marinier, S. Gir- gin, O. Pietquin, M. Sharifi, M. Tagliasacchi, and N. Zeghi- dour. Speak, read and prompt: High-fidelity text-to-speech with minimal supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03540,

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kominek and A

    J. Kominek and A. W. Black. Cmu arctic databases for speech synthesis.Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 4(0), 2003. 6

    2003

  11. [19]

    Kumar, P

    R. Kumar, P. Seetharaman, A. Luebs, I. Kumar, and K. Ku- mar. High-fidelity audio compression with improved rvqgan,

  12. [20]

    Li et al

    P. Li et al. Ideaw: Robust neural audio watermarking with in- vertible dual-embedding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19627, September 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C. Liu, J. Zhang, H. Fang, Z. Ma, W. Zhang, and N. Yu. Dear: A deep-learning-based audio re-recording resilient water- marking. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Arti- ficial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 13201–13209, 2023. 1

    2023

  14. [22]

    S. R. Livingstone and F. A. Russo. The Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RA VDESS): A dynamic, multimodal set of facial and vo- cal expressions in North American English.PLoS ONE, 13(5):e0196391, 2018. 6, 7

    2018

  15. [23]

    J. Lu, Y . Zhang, Z. Li, Z. Shang, W. Wang, and P. Zhang. Detecting unknown speech spoofing algorithms with near- est neighbors. InProceedings of IJCAI 2023 Workshop on Deepfake Audio Detection and Analysis, 2023. 1

    2023

  16. [24]

    Panayotov, G

    V . Panayotov, G. Chen, D. Povey, and S. Khudanpur. Lib- rispeech: An asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5206–5210, 2015. 6

    2015

  17. [25]

    Perez, F

    E. Perez, F. Strub, H. de Vries, V . Dumoulin, and A. Courville. Film: Visual reasoning with a general con- ditioning layer, 2017. 3

    2017

  18. [26]

    Pindrop’s 2025 voice intelligence & security re- port reveals +1,300% surge in deepfake fraud

    Pindrop. Pindrop’s 2025 voice intelligence & security re- port reveals +1,300% surge in deepfake fraud. PR Newswire, June 2025. Accessed July 22, 2025. 1

    2025

  19. [27]

    A. W. Rix, J. G. Beerends, M. P. Hollier, and A. P. Hekstra. Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (pesq)-a new method for speech quality assessment of telephone networks and codecs. In2001 IEEE international conference on acous- tics, speech, and signal processing. Proceedi...

    2001

  20. [28]

    R. S. Roman, P. Fernandez, A. D ´efossez, T. Furon, T. Tran, and H. Elsahar. Proactive detection of voice cloning with localized watermarking, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 7

    2024

  21. [29]

    M. V . Segbroeck, Z. Ahmed, K. Kutsenko, C. Huerta, T. Nguyen, B. Hoffmeister, J. Trmal, M. Omologo, and R. Maas. Dipco - dinner party corpus. In2019 IEEE Au- tomatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU), pages 497–503, 2019. 6

    2019

  22. [30]

    M. K. Singh, N. Takahashi, W. Liao, and Y . Mitsufuji. Silent- cipher: Deep audio watermarking. InInterspeech 2024, interspeech 2024, pages 2235–2239. ISCA, Sept. 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  23. [31]

    C. H. Taal, R. C. Hendriks, R. Heusdens, and J. Jensen. A short-time objective intelligibility measure for time- frequency weighted noisy speech. In2010 IEEE interna- tional conference on acoustics, speech and signal process- ing, pages 4214–4217. IEEE, 2010. 6

    2010

  24. [32]

    Tagliasacchi, Y

    M. Tagliasacchi, Y . Li, K. Misiunas, and D. Roblek. Seanet: A multi-modal speech enhancement network, 2020. 5

    2020

  25. [33]

    C. Wang, S. Chen, Y . Wu, Z. Zhang, L. Zhou, S. Liu, Z. Chen, Y . Liu, H. Wang, J. Li, et al. Neural codec lan- guage models are zero-shot text to speech synthesizers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.02111, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    X. Wang, J. Yamagishi, M. Todisco, H. Delgado, A. Nautsch, N. Evans, M. Sahidullah, V . Vestman, T. Kinnunen, K. A. Lee, L. Juvela, P. Alku, Y .-H. Peng, H.-T. Hwang, Y . Tsao, H.-M. Wang, S. L. Maguer, M. Becker, F. Henderson, R. Clark, Y . Zhang, Q. Wang, Y . Jia, K. Onuma, ...

    2019

  27. [35]

    B. Wire. Ai deepfake fraud calls dominate q4 scams cost- ing consumers millions.Business Wire, February 2025. Ac- cessed April 21, 2025. 1

    2025

  28. [36]

    Xiao and R

    Y . Xiao and R. K. Das. XLSR-Mamba: A dual-column bidirectional state space model for spoofing attack detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10027, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    X. Yan, J. Yi, J. Tao, C. Wang, H. Ma, T. Wang, S. Wang, and R. Fu. An initial investigation for detecting vocoder fin- gerprints of fake audio. InProceedings of the 1st Interna- tional Workshop on Deepfake Detection for Audio Multime- dia, pages 61–68, 2022. 1

    2022

  30. [38]

    Yeo and H

    I.-K. Yeo and H. J. Kim. Modified patchwork algorithm: A novel audio watermarking scheme.IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, 11(4):381–386, 2003. 1

    2003

  31. [39]

    Zhang, S

    Q. Zhang, S. Wen, and T. Hu. Audio deepfake detection with self-supervised xls-r and sls classifier.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03192, 2024. Available at:https://github .com/QiShanZhang/SLSforADD. 1

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. Zhu, R. Kaplan, J. Johnson, and L. Fei-Fei. Hidden: Hid- ing data with deep networks. InProceedings of the Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 657– 672, 2018. 1, 2 Supplementary Material

    2018

  33. [41]

    Additional Details on FiLM-based Water- mark Embedding This hierarchical approach ensures uniform distribution of watermark information across temporal audio segments while accommodating variable-length speech inputs, ad- dressing a critical limitation of existing methods. By ...

  34. [42]

    Extended Augmentation Methodology 2.1. Comprehensive Audio Effect Augmentation Pa- rameters To simulate real-world modifications and ensure the wa- termark’s robustness against audio editing, we apply a di- verse set of audio effects during training. The specific ef- fects and...

  35. [43]

    Technical Specifications of Dual-Network Architecture The separation into distinct networks resolves three in- herent tensions in audio processing systems: 1.Feature complexity vs. resolution trade-off: De- tection requires rich feature representations (deep net- works with 12...

Pith tools

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