Distinguishing AI-Generated Music from Edited Audio as a Hard-Negative Robustness Task

arXiv:2608.14916v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-generated music detectors are commonly evaluated against original songs, but real-world uploads are often remixed, re-encoded, pitch-shifted, or otherwise edited. These edited versions form a difficult negative class: they are not generated by AI, yet they may introduce spectral artifacts that resemble synthetic audio fingerprints. We study this problem as a hard-negative robustness setting for AI-generated music detection, focusing on AI-generated and edited variants derived from the same anchor songs. We compile a YouTube-based dataset of AI, edited, and original variants, using the original tracks only as references, and train a binary AI versus edited detector. Audio is processed as 10-second clips and passed as raw waveforms to a pretrained PaSST spectrogram transformer. To reduce leakage, all splits are performed by anchor song. On the held-out test set, the final video-level system achieves 0.811 balanced accuracy. At clip level, AI-generated clips reach an F1-score of 0.836, while edited clips reach a lower F1-score of 0.720. The results suggest that AI-generated music retains detectable fingerprint-like spectral cues beyond ordinary editing, but the lower edited-class F1-score shows that these cues can still overlap with artifacts from edited audio. Grad-CAM visualizations are used to inspect whether high-confidence predictions rely on localized time-frequency regions.

Abstract:AI-generated music detectors are commonly evaluated against original songs, but real-world uploads are often remixed, re-encoded, pitch-shifted, or otherwise edited. These edited versions form a difficult negative class: they are not generated by AI, yet they may introduce spectral artifacts that resemble synthetic audio fingerprints. We study this problem as a hard-negative robustness setting for AI-generated music detection, focusing on AI-generated and edited variants derived from the same anchor songs. We compile a YouTube-based dataset of AI, edited, and original variants, using the original tracks only as references, and train a binary AI versus edited detector. Audio is processed as 10-second clips and passed as raw waveforms to a pretrained PaSST spectrogram transformer. To reduce leakage, all splits are performed by anchor song. On the held-out test set, the final video-level system achieves 0.811 balanced accuracy. At clip level, AI-generated clips reach an F1-score of 0.836, while edited clips reach a lower F1-score of 0.720. The results suggest that AI-generated music retains detectable fingerprint-like spectral cues beyond ordinary editing, but the lower edited-class F1-score shows that these cues can still overlap with artifacts from edited audio. Grad-CAM visualizations are used to inspect whether high-confidence predictions rely on localized time-frequency regions.

Sound (cs.SD); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2608.14916 [cs.SD]

(or arXiv:2608.14916v1 [cs.SD] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14916 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

Distinguishing AI-Generated Music from Edited Audio as a Hard-Negative Robustness Task

Subiecte conexe