Comparing Self-Supervised and Domain-Invariant Features for Cross-Domain Voice Phishing Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Voice phishing detection faces three critical challenges: real criminal recordings are unavailable due to privacy constraints; when available, only a handful of samples exist, insufficient for fine-tuning; and lightweight acoustic-only detection is needed as an alternative to large self-supervised models. We compare domain-invariant prosodic features and self-supervised representations (HuBERT, wav2vec2.0) through cross-domain evaluation-training on scenario-based actor recordings and testing on authentic criminal calls. Domain-invariant prosodic features achieve 69.5% F1 zero-shot and 71.0% with 5-shot learning. HuBERT achieves highest performance (94.2% F1, 5-shot), while wav2vec2.0 exhibits a precision-oriented detection profile (90.2% F1 with 99.4% precision, 5-shot). These findings reveal fundamental trade-offs: domain-invariant features enable zero-shot deployment when no real data exists, while SSL methods achieve higher performance but require real samples and compute.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.
Builds on
6 of 17 references.
References · 6
- 2020wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representationscited by 3,853
- 2021HuBERT: Self-Supervised Speech Representation Learning by Masked Prediction of Hidden Unitscited by 2,301
- 2021A Fine-tuned Wav2vec 2.0/HuBERT Benchmark For Speech Emotion Recognition, Speaker Verification and Spoken Language Understandingcited by 82
- 2022Boosting Cross-Domain Speech Recognition with Self-Supervisioncited by 10
- 2025Detecting Voice Phishing with Precision: Fine-Tuning Small Language Modelscited by 2
- 2019Attentive Adversarial Learning for Domain-Invariant Trainingcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.