PhonemeDF: A Synthetic Speech Dataset for Audio Deepfake Detection and Naturalness Evaluation
Authors: Vamshi Nallaguntla, Aishwarya Fursule, Shruti Kshirsagar, Anderson R. Avila
Organizations: Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas, USA · Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS-EMT), Université du Québec, Canada · INRS-UQO Mixed Research Unit on Cybersecurity, Gatineau, Canada
The growing sophistication of speech generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) has introduced new challenges in audio deepfake detection. Text-to-speech (TTS) and voice conversion (VC) technologies can create highly convincing synthetic speech with naturalness and intelligibility. This poses serious threats to voice biometric security and to systems designed to combat the spread of spoken misinformation, where synthetic voices may be used to disseminate false or malicious content. While interest in AI-generated speech has increased, resources for evaluating naturalness at the phoneme level remain limited. In this work, we address this gap by presenting the Phoneme-Level DeepFake dataset (PhonemeDF), comprising parallel real and synthetic speech segmented at the phoneme level. Real speech samples are derived from a subset of LibriSpeech, while synthetic samples are generated using four TTS and three VC systems. For each system, phoneme-aligned TextGrid files are obtained using the Montreal Forced Aligner (MFA). We compute the Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) between real and synthetic phoneme distributions to quantify fidelity and establish a ranking based on similarity to natural speech. Our findings show a clear correlation between the KLD of real and synthetic phoneme distributions and the performance of classifiers trained to distinguish them, suggesting that KLD can serve as an indicator of the most discriminative phonemes for deepfake detection.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the dataset creation pipeline.
Figure 2: Per-phoneme evaluation pipeline for real vs. synthetic discrimination.
Dataset
# Files
Avg. (s)
Total (h)
LibriSpeech
28,539
12.69
100
MeloTTS
28,539
10.15
80
XTTS v2
28,539
10.47
82
Chatterbox TTS
28,539
10.15
80
VITS TTS
28,539
10.77
85
Chatterbox VC
28,539
12.70
100
Table 1: Statistics showing number of files, average duration of an audio file (in seconds), and total duration (in hours) for real and synthetic datasets.
Figure 3: TextGrid showing phoneme boundaries aligned using Montreal Forced Aligner (MFA).
Figure 4: KLD between synthesized and real speech using handcrafted features.
Figure 5: KLD between synthesized and real speech using self-supervised features.
Figure 6: Lowest and highest KLD scores for (a) WavLM vowel representation and (b) WavLM consonant representation.
LR
SVM
System
r
p -value
r
p -value
Melo TTS
0.68
4.99E-03
0.63
1.16E-02
XTTS v2
0.67
6.11E-03
0.69
4.07E-03
Ch-TTS
0.79
4.94E-04
0.80
3.89E-04
VITS TTS
0.49
0.065569
0.51
0.054600
Ch-VC
0.68
5.38E-03
0.69
4.05E-03
Table 2: Results for vowels based on LFCC representation.
LR
SVM
System
r
p -value
r
p -value
Melo TTS
0.79
4.28E-06
0.78
5.99E-06
XTTS v2
0.76
1.47E-05
0.76
1.69E-05
Ch-TTS
0.85
1.11E-07
0.85
1.38E-07
VITS TTS
0.65
5.79E-04
0.66
5.08E-04
Ch-VC
0.88
1.22E-08
0.84
2.92E-07
Table 3: Results for consonants based on LFCC representation.
LR
SVM
System
r
p -value
r
p -value
Melo TTS
0.29
0.298568
0.27
0.338104
XTTS v2
-0.43
0.109768
-0.39
0.155521
Ch-TTS
-0.36
0.187258
-0.50
0.059611
VITS TTS
0.75
1.30E-03
0.75
1.39E-03
Ch-VC
-0.60
0.017691
-0.61
0.016767
Table 4: Results for vowels based on Wav2vec 2.0 representation.
LR
SVM
System
r
p -value
r
p -value
Melo TTS
-0.50
0.013894
-0.59
2.19E-03
XTTS v2
0.31
0.134920
0.02
0.908695
Ch-TTS
-0.43
0.036489
-0.25
0.232014
VITS TTS
-0.56
4.25E-03
-0.16
0.443928
Ch-VC
-0.38
0.069623
-0.35
0.090622
Table 5: Results for consonants based on Wav2vec 2.0 representation.
LR
SVM
System
r
p -value
r
p -value
Melo TTS
0.87
2.48E-05
0.81
2.41E-04
XTTS v2
0.70
3.55E-03
0.76
9.30E-04
Ch-TTS
0.65
9.37E-03
0.74
1.59E-03
VITS TTS
0.07
0.803638
0.04
0.898342
Ch-VC
0.52
0.046131
0.61
0.014760
Table 6: Results for vowels based on LogSpec representation.
LR
SVM
System
r
p -value
r
p -value
Melo TTS
0.41
0.046255
0.56
4.82E-03
XTTS v2
0.62
1.29E-03
0.55
4.94E-03
Ch-TTS
0.57
3.70E-03
0.54
6.44E-03
VITS TTS
0.00
0.997485
-0.17
0.428621
Ch-VC
0.74
3.57E-05
0.69
1.86E-04
Table 7: Results for consonants based on LogSpec representation.
LR
SVM
System
r
p -value
r
p -value
Melo TTS
-0.41
0.132823
-0.31
0.264627
XTTS v2
0.18
0.527040
0.17
0.537221
Ch-TTS
-0.04
0.882777
0.01
0.965355
VITS TTS
0.40
0.145025
0.47
0.080362
Ch-VC
-0.65
8.13E-03
-0.67
6.15E-03
Table 8: Results for vowels based on WavLM representation.
LR
SVM
System
r
p -value
r
p -value
Melo TTS
-0.79
4.18E-06
-0.74
3.43E-05
XTTS v2
-0.60
1.93E-03
-0.60
1.89E-03
Ch-TTS
-0.56
4.76E-03
-0.61
1.44E-03
VITS TTS
-0.78
7.42E-06
-0.73
5.40E-05
Ch-VC
-0.58
3.19E-03
-0.53
8.13E-03
Table 9: Results for consonants based on WavLM representation.
Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA. · Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS–EMT), QC, Canada · INRS-UQO Mixed Research Unit on Cybersecurity, Gatineau, Canada
Key Laboratory of Aerospace Information Security and Trusted Computing, Ministry of Education · School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Wuhan University