# DETECT-3B-Omni is Agnostic of Content and Demographics

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03418 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.03418/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [F5-TTS: A Fairytaler that Fakes Fluent and Faithful Speech with Flow Matching](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06885/) (2024)
- [XTTS: a Massively Multilingual Zero-Shot Text-to-Speech Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04904/) (2024)
- [E2 TTS: Embarrassingly Easy Fully Non-Autoregressive Zero-Shot TTS](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18009/) (2024)
- [Does Audio Deepfake Detection Generalize?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.16263/) (2022)
- [Qwen3-TTS Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.15621/) (2026)
- [MegaTTS 3: Sparse Alignment Enhanced Latent Diffusion Transformer for Zero-Shot Speech Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18924/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A trustworthy and GDPR-compliant deepfake audio detector must base its decisions on acoustic artifacts, not on what is being said or who is speaking. We present a large-scale study of semantic independence for Resemble AI's detector, DETECT-3B-Omni. Using 10,240 audio samples from diverse US English speakers across 30 states, generated through 8 different AI voice-cloning systems, we test whether detection accuracy depends on spoken content (benign versus malicious), speaker gender, speaker age, or speaker region. Using equivalence testing, our results show that the accuracy difference between any two of these groups is at most 2 percentage points, at 99% confidence. The detector therefore identifies AI-generated audio with equivalent accuracy regardless of what the audio says or who the speaker is.