SOURCE-LINKED INTELLIGENCE
From Scores to Evidence: Auditable Decisions Can Improve Speech Deepfake Detection
arXiv · AI, language, vision and robotics · article · Sep 8, 2026 · UTC
Speech deepfake detectors usually emit one score per utterance, but a borderline score does not reveal why two examples differ during retrospective error analysis. We ask whether a final score can be calibrated from component fields while keeping those fields visible for inspection. We build a decision record with a passive detector score and a score from a probe applied to a marked copy. It also includes retrieval support held out of the evaluated family, a margin from a support-set profile, and raw neighbor closeness. A cross-fit calibrator combines these fields and two differences between r
Read original source ↗ Open in workspace
- recordType
- paper
- region
- Global
Evidence & attribution
First collected: 2026-09-20T20:02:11.508Z. This is not the publication date.
Observed changes
AIIC observation times, not verified publisher revision times. Up to eight recent revisions.
2026-09-25T06:22:22.116Z
- summary:
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 discar → Speech deepfake detectors usually emit one score per utterance, but a borderline score does not reveal why two examples differ during retrospective error analysis. We ask whether a final score can be calibrated from component fields while keeping those fields visible for inspection. We build a decision record with a passive detector score and a score from a probe applied to a marked copy. It also includes retrieval support held out of the evaluated family, a margin from a support-set profile, and raw neighbor closeness. A cross-fit calibrator combines these fields and two differences between r