Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Speech-Forensics: Towards Comprehensive Synthetic Speech Dataset Establishment and Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single network, TEST, can detect fake speech, locate every forged segment, and identify the synthesis algorithm that made each one, with an utterance-level EER of 5.25% and a segment-level EER of 1.07% on the new Speech-Forensics dataset.

desk verdict A genuinely useful multi-span partial forgery dataset, undermined by an underspecified evaluation protocol that makes the headline numbers unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09032 v3 pith:B4EDM3IW submitted 2024-12-12 cs.SD cs.AIeess.AS

Zhoulin Ji , Chenhao Lin , Hang Wang , Chao Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.AIeess.AS
keywords syntheticspeechdetectiondeepfakeaudiopartialforgerylocalizationtemporalactionforensicsdatasetsynthesisalgorithmrecognitionself-supervisedfeaturesmulti-span
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

Synthetic speech detection today is fragmented: most datasets support either utterance-level real/fake decisions or single-region localization, and few record which synthesis algorithm produced a forgery. This paper tries to close that gap by building Speech-Forensics, a dataset whose partially forged clips contain multiple tampered spans produced by different text-to-speech and voice-conversion algorithms, each span labeled with timestamps and the algorithm that made it. On top of the dataset, the paper proposes TEST, a temporal localization network that in one forward pass decides whether an utterance is authentic, where every forged segment sits, and which algorithm generated each segment. The reported numbers are an average mAP of 83.55%, an utterance-level EER of 5.25%, a segment-level EER of 1.07%, and a 92.19% F1 score. If the claim holds, forensic audio analysis can move from separate detectors and fragile post-processing to a single dense-prediction model.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an anchor-free dense prediction head on a temporal feature pyramid. Rather than proposing candidate segments, the network gives every timestamp a distance to the start and end of the forged interval containing it plus a per-algorithm class score; timestamps are mapped back to real time via $t = \lfloor s_i/2\rfloor + \tau s_i$, and redundant spans are removed by non-maximum suppression. The backbone combines LSTM and Transformer blocks (R-Transformer) at L pyramid scales, and the embedding uses masked difference convolution on top of handcrafted (LFCC/MFCC) or self-supervised (Wav2Vec2/WavLM) features. This turns localization and algorithm recognition into one dense regression and classification problem, which is what lets the model avoid complex post-processing.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of Speech-Forensics forged clips, manually mark the exact splice points by listening and inspecting spectrograms, and compare those boundaries against the paper's automated alignment timestamps; if the median offset is large (say above 50 ms) or systematically biased, the segment-level EER and F1 would need to be recomputed on corrected labels.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single model can perform three forensic tasks on the same audio at once: authenticity detection, multiple fake-segment localization, and synthesis-algorithm recognition. The paper introduces Speech-Forensics, built from a public single-speaker corpus by replacing named entities or adjectives with antonyms, synthesizing the full edited transcript, and using automated audio-text alignment timestamps to splice the synthesized phrases back into the original clip; clips can have several forged spans generated by different algorithms from a set of twelve TTS and VC systems. The accompanying TEST network treats the problem as dense temporal prediction: each time step on a multi-scale feature pyramid estimates its distance to the onset and offset of a forged span and a probability distribution over algorithms, and non-maximum suppression assembles the final spans. On this dataset TEST reports a mean average precision (mAP) of 83.55% averaged over temporal intersection-over-union thresholds, an utterance-level EER of 5.25%, a segment-level EER of 1.07%, and an F1 score of 92.19%, with self-supervised features (Wav2Vec2 and WavLM) clearly outperforming handcrafted cepstral features.

Load-bearing premise

The dataset's ground-truth span boundaries come from automated alignment between audio and text, so any systematic misalignment in those timestamps would be baked into the labels and inflate the reported localization accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A forensic analyst could get a complete verdict on a single recording—authentic or foraged, exactly which intervals, and which generator made each interval—from one model output rather than a pipeline of separate tools.
  • Training directly on multi-span, multi-algorithm partial forgeries appears to be necessary: RawNet2 and AASIST, built for fully fake utterances, degrade sharply on this dataset, while TEST keeps segment-level EER near 1%.
  • Better self-supervised representations transfer to the combined task; with WavLM-Large, the reported segment EER drops to 0.43%, suggesting the joint formulation continues to improve as embeddings improve.
  • The dense-prediction formulation is not tied to a particular feature extractor, so it can be re-run with newer self-supervised models or phonetic features as they appear.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the alignment assumption holds, the same named-entity and antonym-splicing pipeline could scale to other voices and languages, but generalization across speakers and recording conditions remains untested; a speaker-disjoint split would show whether the model learns forgeries or speaker artifacts.
  • The reported near-perfect segment-level localization may partly reflect acoustic discontinuities at splice points, so a harder test is whether performance survives seamless editing, e.g., splicing with cross-fades or vocoder-domain insertion.
  • A natural stress test is cross-dataset evaluation: training on Speech-Forensics and evaluating on PartialSpoof or ADD2023 would reveal whether the joint representation transfers or simply memorizes the dataset's alignment pipeline.
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 Speech-Forensics, a dataset of partially forged English speech built from LJ Speech by splicing TTS/VC-synthesized segments at MFA-aligned timestamps, with multiple forged spans per utterance and algorithm-level labels. It also proposes TEST, a temporal localization network using LSTM-Transformer blocks and a feature pyramid to predict dense span proposals and algorithm probabilities, enabling simultaneous authenticity detection, localization, and algorithm recognition. On this dataset, TEST reports an mAP of 83.55%, an utterance-level EER of 5.25%, a segment-level EER of 1.07%, and an F1 score of 92.19%.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, Speech-Forensics fills a gap by providing multi-span, algorithm-labeled forgeries for comprehensive forensic analysis, and TEST demonstrates that a single model can accomplish three tasks without complex post-processing. The release of code and data is a concrete strength that supports reproducibility. However, the missing definition of the evaluation split and an apparent sign error in the localization formula currently prevent the quantitative claims from being verified, and the lack of cross-dataset evaluation limits the generality of the model claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 5.2] The paper never specifies how the Speech-Forensics dataset is divided into training, validation, and test sets. Section 3.2 reports 4,323 NER-based and 3,129 antonym-based forged samples plus bonafide samples, and Section 5.2 gives optimizer settings, but no split ratio, random seed, or cross-validation scheme is stated. The headline results in Tables 4 and 5 (mAP 83.55%, utterance EER 5.25%, segment EER 1.07%, F1 92.19%) are therefore not verifiable as held-out test results. Please define the split explicitly (including the number of utterances per subset and the method used), or provide a reference to a fixed split in the repository that is described in the paper.
  2. [Section 4.4, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) defines the end of a forged span as e_t = t - d_t^e. Since d_t^e is described in Section 4.1 as the distance from the timestamp to the offset, the correct formula should be e_t = t + d_t^e when d_t^e is a positive distance. The current sign would place e_t before t, making the localization output invalid. Please correct the equation and clarify the sign convention of d_t^e.
  3. [Section 5.4, Table 4] The model is evaluated only on the self-built Speech-Forensics dataset, and comparisons with RawNet2, AASIST, and WBD are performed only on this dataset. To substantiate the claim that TEST is a comprehensive and generalizable solution, please also report results on established partial-forgery benchmarks such as PartialSpoof or ADD 2023 Track 2. This would also address the concern that the model and dataset are from the same group and that metrics could be inflated by dataset-specific patterns.
  4. [Section 3.1] The ground truth span timestamps are derived from Montreal Forced Aligner (MFA) alignments without any reported validation of alignment accuracy. Since the segment-level EER and F1 are computed against these labels, systematic MFA errors would directly compromise the reported numbers. Please provide a reliability assessment, such as a manual inspection of a random sample of spliced segments, or a comparison with an alternative aligner, and discuss the impact of alignment errors on the dataset labels.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4)] The hyperparameter θ in the masked difference convolution is not discussed in the experimental setup; please state its value or explain how it is chosen.
  2. [Section 5.1] The name 'wavLM' appears in Table 5, which should be capitalized as 'WavLM' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  3. [Table 1] The table uses abbreviations such as 'Det.', 'Loc.', and 'Reg.' in column headers; please spell them out or add a note to improve readability.
  4. [Section 5.3] The segment-level EER is described as evaluating 'each 0.01s audio segment', but it is unclear whether this refers to a fixed evaluation grid or to the frameshift of the feature extractor; please clarify the exact evaluation protocol.
  5. [Abstract and Section 5.3] The abstract states an EER of 5.25% without defining EER; please add a brief parenthetical definition in the abstract or introduce the metric earlier.
  6. [Sections 1 and 5.2] The paper claims the method requires 'no complex post-processing' but uses Non-Maximum Suppression at inference; please clarify that NMS is considered a simple and standard post-processing step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TEST's metrics are empirical benchmark results on a self-built dataset, not predictions forced by definition or by self-citation.

full rationale

I examined the claimed chain: dataset construction (Sec. 3) leads to the dense-prediction model (Sec. 4) and then to evaluation (Sec. 5). The dataset labels are produced by MFA alignments of original and synthesized audio and by the recorded synthesis algorithms, independently of TEST's outputs. The model's architecture is adapted from temporal action localization and self-supervised feature extraction, not derived from the metric values. The reported EER, mAP, and F1 are observed outcomes on the constructed corpus; no equation defines the evaluation target in terms of the model's own prediction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: references to prior work are external datasets, baselines, or standard components. The strongest concerns—an unspecified train/test split, possible MFA alignment error, and the apparent sign inconsistency in Eq. (6)—are reproducibility and correctness issues, not circular reasoning. I therefore find no circular step meeting the quoting standard and assign score 0.

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

The central claims rest on the dataset construction pipeline and the evaluation protocol. The main free parameters are standard hyperparameters plus a per-extractor feature layer choice. The key domain assumptions are the accuracy of MFA alignments for ground truth and the representativeness of the single-speaker LJ Speech corpus.

free parameters (3)
  • Difference convolution tradeoff θ = Not explicitly reported in text
    Hyperparameter in Eq (4) balancing intensity-level and gradient-level information; no search details given.
  • Loss balancing ratio λ = Not explicitly reported
    Weight between classification and localization losses in Eq (7); value not stated.
  • Feature layer index = Wav2Vec2-B index 0, WavLM-B index 2
    Selected per model based on mAP in Table 6; different depths chosen for different extractors, a model selection choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LJ Speech dataset is a public domain single-speaker corpus
    Used as the sole source of bonafide audio and the basis for all forged samples (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Montreal Forced Aligner provides accurate audio-text timestamps
    Ground-truth span boundaries for forged segments rely on MFA alignment (Section 3.1); any alignment error propagates to labels and thus to measured segment-level metrics.
  • domain assumption Pretrained TTS/VC models trained on LJ Speech preserve source speaker characteristics
    The paper selects models pretrained on LJ Speech to keep the original speaker's voice (Section 3.1); if this fails, the forged segments would be easier to detect.
  • standard math Standard math operations (Fourier transform, MFCC/LFCC extraction)
    Feature extraction uses standard signal processing (Section 5.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Speech-Forensics: Towards Comprehensive Synthetic Speech Dataset Establishment and Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4EDM3IW

@misc{pith2026241209032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Speech-Forensics: Towards Comprehensive Synthetic Speech Dataset Establishment and Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4EDM3IW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09032}
}
read the original abstract

Detecting synthetic from real speech is increasingly crucial due to the risks of misinformation and identity impersonation. While various datasets for synthetic speech analysis have been developed, they often focus on specific areas, limiting their utility for comprehensive research. To fill this gap, we propose the Speech-Forensics dataset by extensively covering authentic, synthetic, and partially forged speech samples that include multiple segments synthesized by different high-quality algorithms. Moreover, we propose a TEmporal Speech LocalizaTion network, called TEST, aiming at simultaneously performing authenticity detection, multiple fake segments localization, and synthesis algorithms recognition, without any complex post-processing. TEST effectively integrates LSTM and Transformer to extract more powerful temporal speech representations and utilizes dense prediction on multi-scale pyramid features to estimate the synthetic spans. Our model achieves an average mAP of 83.55% and an EER of 5.25% at the utterance level. At the segment level, it attains an EER of 1.07% and a 92.19% F1 score. These results highlight the model's robust capability for a comprehensive analysis of synthetic speech, offering a promising avenue for future research and practical applications in this field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of the Speech-Forensics Dataset: (a) Number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our method TEST. We process the given speech samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Spoofing countermeasures for the protection of automatic speaker recognition systems against attacks with artificial signals

    Federico Alegre, Ravichander Vipperla, and Nicholas Evans. Spoofing countermeasures for the protection of automatic speaker recognition systems against attacks with artificial signals. In Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association , 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Deep Residual Neural Networks for Audio Spoofing Detection

    Moustafa Alzantot, Ziqi Wang, and Mani B Srivastava. Deep residual neural networks for audio spoofing detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00501 , 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1907

  3. [3]

    wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations

    Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:12449--12460, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Waveform boundary detection for partially spoofed audio

    Zexin Cai, Weiqing Wang, and Ming Li. Waveform boundary detection for partially spoofed audio. In ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 1--5, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    The DKU-DUKEECE System for the Manipulation Region Location Task of ADD 2023

    Zexin Cai, Weiqing Wang, Yikang Wang, and Ming Li. The dku-dukeece system for the manipulation region location task of add 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10281 , 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Wavlm: Large-scale self-supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing

    Sanyuan Chen, Chengyi Wang, Zhengyang Chen, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Jinyu Li, Naoyuki Kanda, Takuya Yoshioka, Xiong Xiao, et al. Wavlm: Large-scale self-supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , 16(6):1505--1518, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Wavefake: A data set to facilitate audio deepfake detection

    Joel Frank and Lea Sch \"o nherr. Wavefake: A data set to facilitate audio deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02813 , 2021

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Aasist: Audio anti-spoofing using integrated spectro-temporal graph attention networks

    Jee-weon Jung, Hee-Soo Heo, Hemlata Tak, Hye-jin Shim, Joon Son Chung, Bong-Jin Lee, Ha-Jin Yu, and Nicholas Evans. Aasist: Audio anti-spoofing using integrated spectro-temporal graph attention networks. In ICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 6367--6371, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Sasv 2022: The first spoofing-aware speaker verification challenge

    Jee-weon Jung, Hemlata Tak, Hye-jin Shim, Hee-Soo Heo, Bong-Jin Lee, Soo-Whan Chung, Ha-Jin Yu, Nicholas Evans, and Tomi Kinnunen. Sasv 2022: The first spoofing-aware speaker verification challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.14732 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Application of the electrical network frequency (enf) criterion: A case of a digital recording

    Mateusz Kajstura, Agata Trawinska, and Jacek Hebenstreit. Application of the electrical network frequency (enf) criterion: A case of a digital recording. Forensic science international , 155(2-3):165--171, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    Conditional variational autoencoder with adversarial learning for end-to-end text-to-speech

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

    2021

  4. [12]

    Stc antispoofing systems for the asvspoof2019 challenge

    Galina Lavrentyeva, Sergey Novoselov, Andzhukaev Tseren, Marina Volkova, Artem Gorlanov, and Alexandr Kozlov. Stc antispoofing systems for the asvspoof2019 challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05576 , 2019

    1904 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Multi-grained backend fusion for manipulation region location of partially fake audio

    Jun Li, Lin Li, Mengjie Luo, Xiaoqin Wang, Shushan Qiao, and Yumei Zhou. Multi-grained backend fusion for manipulation region location of partially fake audio. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2023 Workshop on Deepfake Audio Detection and Analysis , volume 755, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Convolutional recurrent neural network and multitask learning for manipulation region location

    Kang Li, Xiao-Min Zeng, Jian-Tao Zhang, and Yan Song. Convolutional recurrent neural network and multitask learning for manipulation region location. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2023 Workshop on Deepfake Audio Detection and Analysis , volume 750, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Single shot temporal action detection

    Tianwei Lin, Xu Zhao, and Zheng Shou. Single shot temporal action detection. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia , pages 988--996, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Gaussian temporal awareness networks for action localization

    Fuchen Long, Ting Yao, Zhaofan Qiu, Xinmei Tian, Jiebo Luo, and Tao Mei. Gaussian temporal awareness networks for action localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 344--353, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Detecting unknown speech spoofing algorithms with nearest neighbors

    Jingze Lu, Yuxiang Zhang, Zhuo Li, Zengqiang Shang, WenChao Wang, and Pengyuan Zhang. Detecting unknown speech spoofing algorithms with nearest neighbors. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2023 Workshop on Deepfake Audio Detection and Analysis , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Audio forensics from acoustic reverberation

    Hafiz Malik and Hany Farid. Audio forensics from acoustic reverberation. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing , pages 1710--1713. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    u ller, Pavel Czempin, Franziska Dieckmann, Adam Froghyar, and Konstantin B \

    Nicolas M M \"u ller, Pavel Czempin, Franziska Dieckmann, Adam Froghyar, and Konstantin B \"o ttinger. Does audio deepfake detection generalize? arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16263 , 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio

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

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    From speaker verification to deepfake algorithm recognition: Our learned lessons from add2023 track3

    Xiaoyi Qin, Xingming Wang, Yanli Chen, Qinglin Meng, and Ming Li. From speaker verification to deepfake algorithm recognition: Our learned lessons from add2023 track3. 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    For: A dataset for synthetic speech detection

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

    2019

  16. [24]

    Transformer language models with lstm-based cross-utterance information representation

    Guangzhi Sun, Chao Zhang, and Philip C Woodland. Transformer language models with lstm-based cross-utterance information representation. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 7363--7367. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    End-to-end anti-spoofing with rawnet2

    Hemlata Tak, Jose Patino, Massimiliano Todisco, Andreas Nautsch, Nicholas Evans, and Anthony Larcher. End-to-end anti-spoofing with rawnet2. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 6369--6373. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Asvspoof 2019: Future horizons in spoofed and fake audio detection

    Massimiliano Todisco, Xin Wang, Ville Vestman, Md Sahidullah, H \'e ctor Delgado, Andreas Nautsch, Junichi Yamagishi, Nicholas Evans, Tomi Kinnunen, and Kong Aik Lee. Asvspoof 2019: Future horizons in spoofed and fake audio detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05441 , 2019

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Spoofing detection with dnn and one-class svm for the asvspoof 2015 challenge

    Jesus Villalba, Antonio Miguel, Alfonso Ortega, and Eduardo Lleida. Spoofing detection with dnn and one-class svm for the asvspoof 2015 challenge. In Sixteenth annual conference of the international speech communication association , 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Tacotron: A fully end-to-end text-to-speech synthesis model

    Yuxuan Wang, RJ Skerry-Ryan, Daisy Stanton, Yonghui Wu, Ron J Weiss, Navdeep Jaitly, Zongheng Yang, Ying Xiao, Zhifeng Chen, Samy Bengio, et al. Tacotron: A fully end-to-end text-to-speech synthesis model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.10135 , 164, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Asvspoof 2019: A large-scale public database of synthesized, converted and replayed speech

    Xin Wang, Junichi Yamagishi, Massimiliano Todisco, H \'e ctor Delgado, Andreas Nautsch, Nicholas Evans, Md Sahidullah, Ville Vestman, Tomi Kinnunen, Kong Aik Lee, et al. Asvspoof 2019: A large-scale public database of synthesized, converted and replayed speech. Computer Speech...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Sas: A speaker verification spoofing database containing diverse attacks

    Zhizheng Wu, Ali Khodabakhsh, Cenk Demiroglu, Junichi Yamagishi, Daisuke Saito, Tomoki Toda, and Simon King. Sas: A speaker verification spoofing database containing diverse attacks. In 2015 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) , pa...

    2015

  23. [31]

    Asvspoof 2021: accelerating progress in spoofed and deepfake speech detection

    Junichi Yamagishi, Xin Wang, Massimiliano Todisco, Md Sahidullah, Jose Patino, Andreas Nautsch, Xuechen Liu, Kong Aik Lee, Tomi Kinnunen, Nicholas Evans, et al. Asvspoof 2021: accelerating progress in spoofed and deepfake speech detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00537 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Detecting digital audio forgeries by checking frame offsets

    Rui Yang, Zhenhua Qu, and Jiwu Huang. Detecting digital audio forgeries by checking frame offsets. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Workshop on Multimedia and Security , pages 21--26, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Revisiting anchor mechanisms for temporal action localization

    Le Yang, Houwen Peng, Dingwen Zhang, Jianlong Fu, and Junwei Han. Revisiting anchor mechanisms for temporal action localization. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 29:8535--8548, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Superb: Speech processing universal performance benchmark

    Shu-wen Yang, Po-Han Chi, Yung-Sung Chuang, Cheng-I Jeff Lai, Kushal Lakhotia, Yist Y Lin, Andy T Liu, Jiatong Shi, Xuankai Chang, Guan-Ting Lin, et al. Superb: Speech processing universal performance benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01051 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Half-truth: A partially fake audio detection dataset

    Jiangyan Yi, Ye Bai, Jianhua Tao, Haoxin Ma, Zhengkun Tian, Chenglong Wang, Tao Wang, and Ruibo Fu. Half-truth: A partially fake audio detection dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.03617 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Add 2022: the first audio deep synthesis detection challenge

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

    2022

  29. [37]

    Add 2023: the second audio deepfake detection challenge

    Jiangyan Yi, Jianhua Tao, Ruibo Fu, Xinrui Yan, Chenglong Wang, Tao Wang, Chu Yuan Zhang, Xiaohui Zhang, Yan Zhao, Yong Ren, et al. Add 2023: the second audio deepfake detection challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Searching multi-rate and multi-modal temporal enhanced networks for gesture recognition

    Zitong Yu, Benjia Zhou, Jun Wan, Pichao Wang, Haoyu Chen, Xin Liu, Stan Z Li, and Guoying Zhao. Searching multi-rate and multi-modal temporal enhanced networks for gesture recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 30:5626--5640, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Deepfake algorithm recognition system with augmented data for add 2023 challenge

    Xiao-Min Zeng, Jiang-Tao Zhang, Kang Li, Zhuo-Li Liu, Wei-Lin Xie, and Yan Song. Deepfake algorithm recognition system with augmented data for add 2023 challenge. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2023 Workshop on Deepfake Audio Detection and Analysis , 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    An initial investigation for detecting partially spoofed audio

    Lin Zhang, Xin Wang, Erica Cooper, Junichi Yamagishi, Jose Patino, and Nicholas Evans. An initial investigation for detecting partially spoofed audio. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.02518 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Actionformer: Localizing moments of actions with transformers

    Chen-Lin Zhang, Jianxin Wu, and Yin Li. Actionformer: Localizing moments of actions with transformers. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 492--510. Springer, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Audio recording location identification using acoustic environment signature

    Hong Zhao and Hafiz Malik. Audio recording location identification using acoustic environment signature. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , 8(11):1746--1759, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.