What Survives the Codec Shift: Pooled No-Vocals Residuals for Speech Deepfake Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The transition from vocoder-based to neural-codec speech synthesis makes generalization more difficult for speech deepfake detectors, particularly those relying on speech-oriented representations. It remains unclear which acoustic representations retain discriminative information when the generation mechanism changes. We therefore compare 12 acoustic representations using a shared low-capacity linear classifier to identify effective evidence under codec shift. The analysis shows that hierarchical XLS-R leads on the pooled test set, while pooled no-vocals residual statistics perform best on the unseen-codec condition, revealing complementary behavior across generation conditions. Building on this finding, we propose MN-P, a dual-view detector that integrates an utterance-level pooled no-vocals representation with token-level XLS-R features through adaptive gating. The proposed MN-P reduces EER by 54.2% overall and by 60.9% on the codec-unseen condition relative to the best-performing retrained state-of-the-art system, with consistent gains across different detector backends. These results indicate that pooled no-vocals residual statistics provide effective complementary evidence for cross-generation speech deepfake detection.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.
Builds on
19 of 30 references.
References · 19
- 2023Neural Codec Language Models are Zero-Shot Text to Speech Synthesizerscited by 752
- 2022High Fidelity Neural Audio Compressioncited by 687
- 2021XLS-R: Self-supervised Cross-lingual Speech Representation Learning at Scalecited by 601
- 2021AASIST: Audio Anti-Spoofing using Integrated Spectro-Temporal Graph Attention Networkscited by 180
- 2019ASVspoof 2019: Future Horizons in Spoofed and Fake Audio Detectioncited by 178
- 2020End-to-end anti-spoofing with RawNet2cited by 164
- 2022Does Audio Deepfake Detection Generalize?cited by 135
- 2022Hybrid Transformers for Music Source Separationcited by 134
- 2021Speech is Silver, Silence is Golden: What do ASVspoof-trained Models Really Learn?cited by 37
- 2024The Codecfake Dataset and Countermeasures for the Universally Detection of Deepfake Audiocited by 31
- 2023Towards generalisable and calibrated synthetic speech detection with self-supervised representationscited by 23
- 2024Mixture of Experts Fusion for Fake Audio Detection Using Frozen wav2vec 2.0cited by 20
7 more
- 2025Nes2Net: A Lightweight Nested Architecture for Foundation Model Driven Speech Anti-spoofingcited by 19
- 2024CodecFake: Enhancing Anti-Spoofing Models Against Deepfake Audios from Codec-Based Speech Synthesis Systemscited by 16
- 2024Cross-Domain Audio Deepfake Detection: Dataset and Analysiscited by 11
- 2019Generalization of Spoofing Countermeasures: a Case Study with ASVspoof 2015 and BTAS 2016 Corporacited by 9
- 2025CompSpoof: A Dataset and Joint Learning Framework for Component-Level Audio Anti-spoofing Countermeasurescited by 5
- 2024Listening Between the Lines: Synthetic Speech Detection Disregarding Verbal Contentcited by 4
- 2024Interpretable Temporal Class Activation Representation for Audio Spoofing Detectioncited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.