Papers for

audio forensics teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Voice cloning models reveal interpretable speech features for better control

Discovering Interpretable Acoustic Features in Autoregressive Voice-Cloning TTS Models

Abstract: Voice-cloning TTS models synthesize an unseen speaker's voice from brief speech prompts, but it remains unclear which acoustic properties they represent and use. We introduce a feature-based interpretability framework for autoregressive voice-cloning TTS models, analyzing features from sparse autoencoders (SAEs), PCA, and random directions via sparse probing, steering, and quantitative auto-interpretability. We focus on Qwen3-TTS and extend probing and steering to $5$ additional models to test generalization across architectures. These models encode concepts like pitch, energy, noise, and accent, but sparse prediction and steering are effective only for some concepts. Strong probing does not always translate to steering or vice-versa. SAEs are useful for sparse probing of human-labelled concepts and novel-concept discovery, while PCA is competitive for dense probing and steering. Auto-interpretability finds $684$ automatically validated SAE features in Qwen3-TTS covering speaker clusters, speaking style, and recording conditions beyond known concepts. Overall, we perform a comprehensive interpretability study of autoregressive voice-cloning TTS models.

Thu 29 OctComputation and LanguageMachine LearningSound
The gist
Voice cloning technology can copy a person’s voice from short speech clips, but it’s unclear how these systems understand different sound traits. The authors studied several popular voice cloning models to find out which voice qualities like pitch, accent, and speaking style are captured and how easy it is to identify or change these traits. They used special methods to discover interpretable speech features and found that some methods work better for spotting traits, while others help more with changing them. Their work helps explain what voice cloning models learn about speech and could make it easier to control synthetic voices in the future.
Open → 2610.40505v1

Self supervised speech features improve restoration when combined early

When Do Self-Supervised Representations Help Speech Restoration?

Abstract: Self-supervised learning (SSL) representations are widely used in speech restoration (SR), and the prevailing trend is SSL feature cleansing: fine-tuning the SSL to recover clean features from degraded speech, then conditioning the restoration model on them. However, the representational capability of SSL when encoding degraded speech has been underexplored, and we ask whether cleansing always benefits SR training. Across SSL encoders and perceptual quality proxies, we discover perceptual correlation collapse---under severe degradation, cleansing degraded SSL features toward clean ones misaligns with the SR objective. We hypothesize the restoration backbone can supply the SSL with clues to resolve this collapse, since its intermediate layers already produce partially restored features. We therefore propose Early Restoration Injection (ERI), which routes intermediate features from the restoration backbone into the SSL through a lightweight conditioning network. ERI excels over the unconditioned baseline and, on the VoiceFixer benchmark, achieves competitive performance among multiple baselines.

Thu 22 OctSound
The gist
Speech restoration tries to fix noisy or broken audio recordings. The authors found that trying to clean up the speech features used by AI models before restoring often hurts performance when the noise is very bad. Instead, they propose a method that shares partly restored speech information early on with the feature system, helping it better understand and fix the noise. This approach improves speech restoration quality compared to standard methods.
Open → 2610.30869v1

High decodability in speech models does not ensure precise speaker control

Decodability Is Not Controllability: Local and Anisotropic Speaker Control in Continuous-Latent TTS

Abstract: High linear decodability does not entail causal controllability in continuous-latent text-to-speech (TTS). In VoxCPM2, position-matched probes and equal-norm interventions across 30 speakers and 60 directed dyads expose this separation: reference-audio states at the final residual acoustic language model layer (RALM L7) retain 0.970 probe accuracy, yet aligned edits yield 0/60 target-dominant dyads. Edits at early reference-audio positions produce the opposite pattern. At L0, pair-aligned updates increase target similarity by 0.326 and achieve target dominance in all 60 dyads, against at most 1/60 under any equal-norm direction or position control. Independent speaker encoders, retrieval against held-out speaker prototypes, and double-blind listening confirm that the shifted voice is heard as the intended target. Cross-architecture interventions in dots.tts distinguish backbone leverage from direct acoustic control: backbone edits displace the source without target attraction, while x-vector ablation reduces source similarity from 0.849 to 0.006. These findings identify two requirements for training-free speaker control: geometric specificity and a computational route that carries the intended speaker condition into acoustic synthesis.

Wed 21 OctSoundComputation and LanguageMachine Learning
The gist
This paper shows that just because a voice model can easily decode speaker identity, it does not mean one can accurately change or control the speaker's voice as intended. The authors found that edits made at different points inside the model affect voice changes very differently—some do not result in the target speaker's voice being heard at all. Their experiments confirm that truly controlling speaker identity in text-to-speech requires targeting very specific parts of the model and ensuring the speaker information is correctly passed through the system.
Open → 2610.29345v1

System embeds resilient watermarks in synthetic speech to trace origin

Learning to Watermark Speech Synthesis Against Model-Driven Reconstruction

Abstract: Modern TTS systems increasingly generate synthetic speech at scale for diverse users. This setting calls for content-level provenance that can verify the origin of released speech and attribute it to the requesting user, which generative watermarking can support by embedding multi-bit identifiers directly into synthesized speech. Once released, however, speech may undergo heterogeneous learned transformations during distribution and editing, with reconstruction objectives that can preserve speech utility while affecting watermark recoverability differently. We find that no single watermark carrier remains consistently reliable across reconstruction models, as its survival depends jointly on the embedded structure, reconstruction mechanism, and observation representation. To this end, we propose Thrive, a multi-bit generative speech watermarking framework for modern autoregressive TTS, covering both discrete-token and continuous-representation generation under reconstruction attacks. Specifically, Rise synchronizes watermark injection into intermediate representations with its continued integration into subsequent generation, while Care combines waveform and spectral experts using bit-wise reliability selection. Experiments on both autoregressive paradigms show that Thrive preserves synthesis fidelity, achieves 87.6% average recovery accuracy under reconstruction attacks, and supports source attribution over candidate sets of up to 10,000 identities.

Sat 3 OctCryptography and SecuritySound
The gist
Synthesized speech can be copied and altered, making it hard to tell where it came from or who made it. The authors developed a method called Thrive that hides special codes inside computer-generated speech, which can survive changes made during editing and sharing. This lets people check if a speech clip came from a specific text-to-speech system and which user requested it. Their tests showed Thrive works well across different types of speech systems and tough editing scenarios, recovering identifiers accurately.
Open → 2610.04235v1

Audio reasoning benchmark reveals gaps in deepfake detection tools

SEAR: Spoofing Evidence-Grounded Audio Reasoning Benchmark for Audio Language Models

Abstract: Audio language models (ALMs) are increasingly used for audio deepfake detection (ADD), yet existing benchmarks assess their verdicts or rationale plausibility without verifying the underlying acoustic evidence. To address this issue, we first introduce spoofing evidence-grounded audio reasoning (SEAR), a four-task AQA benchmark to evaluate ALM-based ADD through acoustic evidence identification and quantification, deepfake detection, and forensic rationale generation. We further propose a bona-fide-based acoustic evidence agent (BAEA), which equips a frozen ALM with controlled acoustic tools under \textsc{fixed} or \textsc{adaptive} evidence-acquisition policies. Experiments with six ALMs reveal a clear gap between plausible rationales and verifiable acoustic evidence reasoning, while BAEA-\textsc{Fixed} improves final verdicts and forensic rationales on both evaluation partitions. Controlled interventions further show that misleading evidence degrades both detection and grounding performance.

Wed 30 SeptSoundMachine Learning
The gist
Detecting fake audio is tricky, and current tests mostly check if models give believable answers instead of verifying if they use real sound clues. The authors created SEAR, a set of tasks that tests whether audio language models can find and explain real evidence of tampering. They also built a method to help models gather and use sound evidence more effectively. Their tests showed many models struggle to truly reason with the sounds behind their decisions, but their new approach improved accuracy and explanations.
Open → 2609.39847v1

Voice similarity better measured by shape of embeddings than accuracy

Rethinking Automated Voice Similarity by Shifting from EER to Embedding Geometry

Abstract: Speaker verification (SV) models are commonly assumed to better capture nuances among speaker characteristics as verification accuracy improves, leading to their widespread use as automated proxies for human voice similarity in speech generation tasks. However, by establishing a human perceptual alignment metric and conducting systematic analysis, we demonstrate that perceptual alignment is governed far more by how a model is trained (its learning objective) than by how well it performs (EER). Notably, standard margin-based classification losses (e.g., AAM-Softmax) yield substantially lower perceptual alignment than prototypical metric losses, while EER itself fails to track human judgment, directly challenging the community's implicit assumption. We trace this divergence to embedding geometry, where a model's effective dimensionality ($d_{\mathrm{eff}}$) tracks perceptual alignment with a $-0.95$ rank correlation, revealing that the dimensional spread favored by classification losses fundamentally clashes with the low-dimensional nature of human voice perception. Imposing a dimensionality bottleneck compresses $d_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and raises perceptual alignment ($ρ_{\mathrm{align}}$) from 0.08 to 0.74, establishing a principled geometric criterion for evaluating voice similarity.

Sun 27 SeptSound
The gist
People often assume that better speaker verification accuracy means a computer is better at judging if two voices sound alike. The authors found that how the model is trained matters more than accuracy for matching human opinion. They showed that certain training methods produce voice representations that align better with how humans perceive voice similarity. This happens because human judgment is based on fewer key voice features, while some models spread information across many dimensions. By making the model focus on fewer features, it matches human voice similarity much better.
Open → 2609.33999v1

Speaker recognition improved by finding hidden patterns in voices

Exploring Second-Order Pattern Recognition in Speaker Recognition

Abstract: In classical pattern recognition tasks, neural networks are trained to recognise human-defined patterns for model inputs. Some Explainable AI (XAI) methods can explain other latent patterns that underlie the network's recognition of inputs as human-defined patterns; in this work, we call these latent patterns second-order patterns, and we propose to discover them. To this end, we apply a hierarchical clustering algorithm to analyse whether representations learned by a speaker recognition network from utterances naturally form hierarchical clusters. Each resulting cluster represents a second-order pattern that characterises how the network recognises some known utterances as speaker identities. All the resulting second-order patterns are then semantically interpreted using the existing Hierarchical Cluster-Class Matching (HCCM) method. Furthermore, we propose a new task, second-order pattern recognition, to identify which discovered second-order patterns characterising known utterances are exhibited by an unseen utterance. To achieve this, we design the Hierarchical Cluster Navigation and Assignment (HCNA) method. HCNA recognises a known second-order pattern as applying to an unseen utterance when the unseen utterance's network representation lies within the extrapolation space of the cluster regarded as that second-order pattern. Our experiments show that the extrapolation mechanism introduced by HCNA substantially improves performance on the second-order pattern recognition task.

Thu 10 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Speaker recognition systems learn to identify who is speaking by recognizing certain voice features. The authors call hidden, underlying patterns that the system uses 'second-order patterns' and find these by grouping similar voice representations. They also create a way to tell if a new voice sample fits one of these hidden patterns, which helps understand and improve how the system works. Their method showed better results in identifying these patterns correctly.
Open → 2609.11182v1