Upload README.md with huggingface_hub
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ tags:
|
|
| 14 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 15 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 16 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 18 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 19 |
|
|
@@ -71,13 +72,15 @@ crop), so the numbers are exactly reproducible from the pinned score file.
|
|
| 71 |
| CD-ADD | test | **54.55** | 20,786 | 0 | out-of-domain (modern neural-TTS); does not generalize |
|
| 72 |
| InTheWild | test | **55.92** | 31,779 | 0 | out-of-domain (real-world deepfakes); does not generalize |
|
| 73 |
| ASVspoof2021_LA | test | **18.70** | 181,566 | 0 | cross-dataset generalization |
|
|
|
|
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
The ASVspoof2019_LA result reproduces near the paper's reported 2.25 % on the LA eval
|
| 76 |
set; the deterministic window (vs. the paper's random crop) accounts for the small
|
| 77 |
difference. As with its Res2TCNGuard sibling, the model trained only on ASVspoof2019 LA
|
| 78 |
-
|
| 79 |
-
|
| 80 |
-
|
|
|
|
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
## Usage
|
| 83 |
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 15 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 16 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 17 |
+
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 18 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 19 |
[](https://huggingface.co/spaces/SpeechAntiSpoofingBenchmarks/SpeechAntiSpoofingArena?system=rescapsguard)
|
| 20 |
|
|
|
|
| 72 |
| CD-ADD | test | **54.55** | 20,786 | 0 | out-of-domain (modern neural-TTS); does not generalize |
|
| 73 |
| InTheWild | test | **55.92** | 31,779 | 0 | out-of-domain (real-world deepfakes); does not generalize |
|
| 74 |
| ASVspoof2021_LA | test | **18.70** | 181,566 | 0 | cross-dataset generalization |
|
| 75 |
+
| ASVspoof2021_DF | test | **17.00** | 611,829 | 0 | cross-dataset generalization |
|
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
The ASVspoof2019_LA result reproduces near the paper's reported 2.25 % on the LA eval
|
| 78 |
set; the deterministic window (vs. the paper's random crop) accounts for the small
|
| 79 |
difference. As with its Res2TCNGuard sibling, the model trained only on ASVspoof2019 LA
|
| 80 |
+
degrades on the newer/cross-domain ASVspoof2021 LA and DF sets and does not generalize to
|
| 81 |
+
the out-of-domain CD-ADD and InTheWild sets — the cost of training on a single attack
|
| 82 |
+
type. The ASVspoof2021_DF result (17.00 %) matches the sibling Res2TCNGuard's 17.02 % on
|
| 83 |
+
the same eval.
|
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
## Usage
|
| 86 |
|