All papersAudio, Speech & MusicThe University of Melbourne

VeriSpoof: Beyond Real or Fake with One Audio LLM

/ Paper arXiv 2611.04634

Key numbers

2.14%VeriSpoof-Plus achieves 2.14% pooled EER
4.43%trained only on official training splits of eight corpora, achieves 4.43% EER
6.2%VeriSpoof-Plus verifies whether recordings from generators unseen in training share a source at 6.2% EER

From the paperCopied from the abstract, not written by AI.

Abstract

From the paperThe authors' own words.

A speech deepfake detector estimates whether a recording is synthetic, but a forensic analyst also asks which system produced it, whether recordings share a source, and what evidence supports each conclusion. We present VeriSpoof, an audio language model that unifies five tasks with shared weights: deepfake detection, generator attribution (generator, acoustic model and vocoder), recording-condition analysis, synthesized-span localisation, and source verification. Each decision is supported by grounded rationales whose statements can be independently verified. Answers are scored by sentence likelihood, allowing detection and source verification to be thresholded without separate heads. Rationale statements can be checked against waveform measurements, span labels, or generator metadata. Counterfactual examples train decisions to follow the stated evidence. Across the 14 Speech-DF-Arena test sets, VeriSpoof-Plus achieves 2.14% pooled EER, ranking third of 28 systems and first among open-weight systems. VeriSpoof-Base, trained only on official training splits of eight corpora, achieves 4.43% EER, less than half that of the next open-weight detector. With the same weights, VeriSpoof-Plus verifies whether recordings from generators unseen in training share a source at 6.2% EER. Controlled studies show that the audio representation governs detection, the LLM governs recording comparison, and source supervision is necessary for neural-codec fakes. Statement-checkable rationales catch partial fakes missed by one-step answers (99.6% vs. 78.4% on PartialEdit) and determine decisions under edits unseen in training (99.5%). Training updates only 29.7M of 2.85B parameters, fitting a single 24 GB GPU with gradient checkpointing. We release both models, inference code, a demo, and VeriSpoof-Bench, the evaluation suite covering these questions.

From the full paper

From the paperCopied from the paper itself by our code.

Reading the paper on arXiv…

Try it

Code, models and demos that use this paper.

Models:
AustinXiao/VeriSpoof-Base ↗3 models on Hugging Face
Demos:
AustinXiao/VeriSpoof-demo ↗1 demo on Hugging Face
Datasets:
AustinXiao/VeriSpoof-Bench ↗1 dataset on Hugging Face

Ask this paper

/ Ask a questionAnswers come from the full paper and name the section

    / Your notes

    Select text in the abstract to highlight it or add a note. They stay in this browser.

      Read the PDF