Cited by 536Speech Recognition and SynthesisBiometric Identification and SecuritySpeech and Audio Processing

The ASVspoof 2017 challenge: assessing the limits of replay spoofing attack detection

Open access
Kinnunen, Tomi, Sahidullah, Md., Delgado, Héctor, Todisco, Massimiliano, Evans, Nicholas, Yamagishi, Junichi, Lee, Kong Aik·2017·Interspeech 2017

Abstract

The ASVspoof initiative was created to promote the development of countermeasures which aim to protect automatic speaker verification (ASV) from spoofing attacks. The first community-led, common evaluation held in 2015 focused on countermeasures for speech synthesis and voice conversion spoofing attacks. Arguably, however, it is replay attacks which pose the greatest threat. Such attacks involve the replay of recordings collected from enrolled speakers in order to provoke false alarms and can be mounted with greater ease using everyday consumer devices. ASVspoof 2017, the second in the series, hence focused on the development of replay attack countermeasures. This paper describes the database, protocols and initial findings. The evaluation entailed highly heterogeneous acoustic recording and replay conditions which increased the equal error rate (EER) of a baseline ASV system from 1.76% to 30.71%. Submissions were received from 49 research teams, 20 of which improved upon a baseline replay spoofing detector EER of 24.65%, in terms of replay/non-replay discrimination. While largely successful, the evaluation indicates that the quest for countermeasures which are resilient in the face of variable replay attacks remains very much alive.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21437/interspeech.2017-1111

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Before the ASVspoof Challenge 2017, there were only a couple of research papers on replay attack; after the challenge, more approaches for this attack were researched.

    “Additionally, before the ASVspoof Challenge 2017 (Kinnunen et al., 2017; Lavrentyeva et al., 2017), there were only a couple of research papers done on replay attack, and after this challenge, more approaches for this attack were researched (Tom et al., 2018; Pradhan et al., 2019).”

    From Audio deepfakes: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as Kinnunen et al., 2017

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kinnunen, T., Sahidullah, M., Delgado, H., Todisco, M., Evans, N., Yamagishi, J., & Lee, K. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • EURECOM (FR)
  • National Institute of Informatics (JP)
  • Institute for Infocomm Research (SG)
Venue
Interspeech 2017
Publisher
ISCA
Published
2017-08-20
Pages
2-6
ISSN
2308-457X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2745896134
Cited by
535
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 13
FWCI
24.45
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Interspeech (USB) (publishedVersion)
  • UEF eRepo (University of Eastern Finland) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Graduate School and Research Center in Digital Science (EURECOM) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission (647850, HORIZON2020)
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (16H06302, 15H01686, 26280066)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (15H01686, 16H06302, 26280066)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
Keywords
speaker verification, spoofing attacks, equal error rate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review