Organizations: 1Imperial College London · 4Technical University of Munich · 2Queen Mary University of London · 3Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
Passive fingerprints (intrinsic traces naturally left by generators) have been shown to enable attribution in speech deepfake detection, yet their persistence, reproducibility, and content-independence remain unverified. Moreover, no prior work distinguishes perceptible from imperceptible fingerprints, although the two have very different implications for attribution reliability. Perceptible fingerprints, such as emotional expression, are shaped by perceptual quality objectives and may change across model updates, whereas imperceptible fingerprints are not explicitly optimised by current training objectives and are rarely considered in existing dataset design or training strategies, as they have limited influence on downstream applications. We therefore propose a Perceptible-Imperceptible Passive-fingerprint Diagnostic Protocol (PIPDP) to define and separately analyze these two fingerprint types. PIPDP comprises three complementary analyses: multi-evidence fingerprint verification through residual-energy, reproducibility, and saliency analyses, perceptually transparent perturbations preserving audio quality, and prompt-driven emotion change that modifies perceptible fingerprints without model retraining. Experiments across ten speech generators and three attribution detectors show that imperceptible fingerprints provide persistent attribution cues. Perceptually transparent perturbations reduce attribution accuracy by up to 48.2% on HiggsAudioV3, whereas emotion-driven changes leave attribution largely unchanged, with only about a 1.0% accuracy variation across emotions on CosyVoice2 using w2v-bert-MLP. These results suggest that imperceptible fingerprints are more reliable for trustworthy attribution.
Audio deepfakes have improved rapidly recently, yet their effect on human trust in real speech remains unstudied. We present the largest listening study on audio deepfake perception to date, collecting 35,532 judgments from 1,768 participants across 138 text-to-speech and voice conversion systems. Our central finding is a skepticism shift: compared to a 2021 baseline, human accuracy on fake samples barely changed (72.9% to 71.2%), but accuracy on real samples dropped from 72.7% to 64.1%. Participants are not worse at detecting synthesis artifacts; rather, they increasingly distrust authentic speech. Samples generated by commercial and autoregressive language model systems proved hardest to detect (61.3 - 65.9%), while those from traditional seq2seq and flow-matching models remain easier to spot (75.4 - 76.8%). An ML detector that served as a reference point maintained over 94.5% accuracy across all conditions. Our results suggest that the primary threat posed by modern deepfakes may not be mere deception, but the erosion of trust in genuine audio.
As the accuracy of speech deepfake detection improves with the use of self-supervised representations such as wav2vec 2.0 and HuBERT, understanding why the speech is classified as bona fide or deepfake remains an open challenge. In pursuit of more trustworthy and interpretable artificial intelligence, we introduce a phoneme-level analysis framework that connects model predictions to measurable phonetic units. Our post-hoc explainability method is generally applicable to a variety of speech deepfake detection systems based on convolutional neural networks since it leverages Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping in conjunction with speech recognition to generate saliency maps aligned with phonemes and pauses. This pipeline reveals statistically significant attack- and speaker-dependent phonetic cues associated with spoofed speech in terms that humans can understand. Experiments using ASVspoof 5 show comparable detection performance to similar architectures while providing linguistic interpretations across speakers and spoofing conditions.
Anna Taylor, Michele Panariello, Massimiliano Todisco +3
Speech deepfakes can mimic a speaker's voice convincingly enough to deceive listeners and automated systems. This has driven strong progress in speech deepfake detection, but most detectors still end with one score per utterance. That score is useful for ranking systems, yet it says little about why a borderline item should be trusted, deferred, or reviewed. Two utterances can fall in the same score band for different reasons, for example because passive and retrieval evidence disagree or because the keyed probe is unavailable. We ask whether the final decision can remain scalar without discarding that provenance. We answer this question with an auditable decision record that carries four aligned cues into a late calibration step: a passive detector score, a conditional keyed-probe score on a marked derivative, retrieval support, and a speaker-profile margin, together with explicit disagreement coordinates. On the 4,080-example ASVspoof 5 Track 1 matched subset, the fixed retrieval-augmented rule improves on retrieval-only evidence, reducing equal error rate (EER) from 15.84% to 11.91%, and late calibration over the full record reaches 8.43% EER. At a 33.75% review budget, the exposed cue union covers 82.85% of the calibrated model's errors. The best passive WavLM run still reaches 6.71% EER, so we do not present the decision record as a stronger standalone detector. Its contribution is to preserve the evidence behind each surfaced utterance while still producing one operating score for thresholding and review.