Papers for

voice ai developers

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.

Audio benchmark advances telecom fraud detection with realistic scam calls

TeleAntiFraud 2.0: A Refreshable, Profile-Grounded, and Audio-Based Benchmark for Telecom Fraud Detection

Abstract: Telecom fraud scripts evolve rapidly and are often designed to resemble routine service conversations, creating two key requirements for audio-based telecom-fraud evaluation. First, benchmarks must incorporate newly observed scam patterns without overwriting previously established test sets. Second, they must distinguish fraud from lawful, near-domain calls rather than relying on topic-separated negative examples. We present TeleAntiFraud 2.0, constructed with our Mixed-Tree Anti-Fraud Generation Pipeline and evaluated under a monthly frozen evaluation protocol. The pipeline transforms online fraud-case abstracts into profile-grounded scenarios, expands them through mixed-tree generation, realizes fraud and non-fraud dialogue paths under shared contexts, renders validated dialogues as role-matched speech, and freezes the resulting audio, labels, prompts, manifests, and provenance records for each monthly evaluation set. Each frozen set contains 900 Chinese calls, comprising 600 fraud and 300 near-domain non-fraud cases. Controlled text experiments show that three classifiers achieve perfect macro-averaged F1 (Macro-F1) when evaluated against unrelated or ordinary negatives, but drop to 0.65-0.68 with near-domain sibling negatives. Full-set audio and automatic-speech-recognition plus large-language-model (ASR+LLM) evaluations further reveal class-prior shortcuts, prediction collapse, and snapshot sensitivity. Together, these findings establish near-domain construction and collapse-aware reporting as core requirements for evaluating audio-based telecom-fraud models under realistic confusable conditions. The accompanying research artifact includes the construction code, evaluation scripts, manifests, and documentation. Our dataset and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/TeleAntiFraud-2_0-EEB2/.

Wed 16 SeptSoundComputation and Language
The gist
Detecting phone scams is hard because fraud calls often sound like normal customer service conversations. The authors created TeleAntiFraud 2.0, a special collection of recorded scam and similar non-scam calls that change every month without forgetting old examples. They tested different methods and found that distinguishing scams from closely related normal calls is much tougher than from unrelated calls. This shows the importance of using realistic call examples and careful testing to build better scam detection tools.
Open → 2609.18748v1

Voice phishing detection compares self-supervised and prosodic features

Comparing Self-Supervised and Domain-Invariant Features for Cross-Domain Voice Phishing Detection

Abstract: 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.

Mon 7 SeptSoundComputation and Language
The gist
Detecting voice phishing is hard because real scam recordings are private and few samples exist. The authors compared two approaches: one uses features that do not change across different settings, and the other uses large self-training models. They found the simpler features work okay without any real examples, but the big models perform much better when some real scam recordings are available. This shows a trade-off between quick deployment and accuracy in real situations.
Open → 2609.07079v1