What You Read Isn't What You Hear: Linguistic Sensitivity in Deepfake Speech Detection

Recent advances in text-to-speech technologies have enabled realistic voice generation, fueling audio-based deepfake attacks such as fraud and impersonation. While audio anti-spoofing systems are critical for detecting such threats, prior work has predominantly focused on acoustic-level perturbations, leaving the impact of linguistic variation largely unexplored. In this paper, we investigate the linguistic sensitivity of both open-source and commercial anti-spoofing detectors by introducing transcript-level adversarial attacks. Our extensive evaluation reveals that even minor linguistic perturbations can significantly degrade detection accuracy: attack success rates surpass 60% on several open-source detector-voice pairs, and notably one commercial detection accuracy drops from 100% on synthetic audio to just 32%. Through a comprehensive feature attribution analysis, we identify that both linguistic complexity and model-level audio embedding similarity contribute strongly to detector vulnerability. We further demonstrate the real-world risk via a case study replicating the Brad Pitt audio deepfake scam, using transcript adversarial attacks to completely bypass commercial detectors. These results highlight the need to move beyond purely acoustic defenses and account for linguistic variation in the design of robust anti-spoofing systems. All source code will be publicly available.

Publication Details

Journal
ArXiv.org
Published
2025-05-23
Primary Topic
Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What You Read Isn't What You Hear: Linguistic Sensitivity in Deepfake Speech Detection

ArXiv.org
Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
article

What You Read Isn't What You Hear: Linguistic Sensitivity in Deepfake Speech Detection

article en

Abstract

Recent advances in text-to-speech technologies have enabled realistic voice generation, fueling audio-based deepfake attacks such as fraud and impersonation. While audio anti-spoofing systems are critical for detecting such threats, prior work has predominantly focused on acoustic-level perturbations, leaving the impact of linguistic variation largely unexplored. In this paper, we investigate the linguistic sensitivity of both open-source and commercial anti-spoofing detectors by introducing transcript-level adversarial attacks. Our extensive evaluation reveals that even minor linguistic perturbations can significantly degrade detection accuracy: attack success rates surpass 60% on several open-source detector-voice pairs, and notably one commercial detection accuracy drops from 100% on synthetic audio to just 32%. Through a comprehensive feature attribution analysis, we identify that both linguistic complexity and model-level audio embedding similarity contribute strongly to detector vulnerability. We further demonstrate the real-world risk via a case study replicating the Brad Pitt audio deepfake scam, using transcript adversarial attacks to completely bypass commercial detectors. These results highlight the need to move beyond purely acoustic defenses and account for linguistic variation in the design of robust anti-spoofing systems. All source code will be publicly available.

ArXiv.org
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

What You Read Isn't What You Hear: Linguistic Sensitivity in Deepfake Speech Detection · ArXiv.org (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS