Showing 1–3 of 3 results for author: Ciobanu, I

XMAD-Bench: Cross-Domain Multilingual Audio Deepfake Benchmark

Authors: Ioan-Paul Ciobanu, Andrei-Iulian Hiji, Nicolae-Catalin Ristea, Paul Irofti, Cristian Rusu, Radu Tudor Ionescu

Abstract: Recent advances in audio generation led to an increasing number of deepfakes, making the general public more vulnerable to financial scams, identity theft, and misinformation. Audio deepfake detectors promise to alleviate this issue, with many recent studies reporting accuracy rates close to 99%. However, these methods are typically tested in an in-domain setup, where the deepfake samples from the… ▽ More Recent advances in audio generation led to an increasing number of deepfakes, making the general public more vulnerable to financial scams, identity theft, and misinformation. Audio deepfake detectors promise to alleviate this issue, with many recent studies reporting accuracy rates close to 99%. However, these methods are typically tested in an in-domain setup, where the deepfake samples from the training and test sets are produced by the same generative models. To this end, we introduce XMAD-Bench, a large-scale cross-domain multilingual audio deepfake benchmark comprising 668.8 hours of real and deepfake speech. In our novel dataset, the speakers, the generative methods, and the real audio sources are distinct across training and test splits. This leads to a challenging cross-domain evaluation setup, where audio deepfake detectors can be tested ``in the wild''. Our in-domain and cross-domain experiments indicate a clear disparity between the in-domain performance of deepfake detectors, which is usually as high as 100%, and the cross-domain performance of the same models, which is sometimes similar to random chance. Our benchmark highlights the need for the development of robust audio deepfake detectors, which maintain their generalization capacity across different languages, speakers, generative methods, and data sources. Our benchmark is publicly released at https://github.com/ristea/xmad-bench/. △ Less

Submitted 31 May, 2025; originally announced June 2025.

Measuring Determinism in Large Language Models for Software Code Review

Authors: Eugene Klishevich, Yegor Denisov-Blanch, Simon Obstbaum, Igor Ciobanu, Michal Kosinski

Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) promise to streamline software code reviews, but their ability to produce consistent assessments remains an open question. In this study, we tested four leading LLMs -- GPT-4o mini, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and LLaMA 3.2 90B Vision -- on 70 Java commits from both private and public repositories. By setting each model's temperature to zero, clearing context, and repea… ▽ More Large Language Models (LLMs) promise to streamline software code reviews, but their ability to produce consistent assessments remains an open question. In this study, we tested four leading LLMs -- GPT-4o mini, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and LLaMA 3.2 90B Vision -- on 70 Java commits from both private and public repositories. By setting each model's temperature to zero, clearing context, and repeating the exact same prompts five times, we measured how consistently each model generated code-review assessments. Our results reveal that even with temperature minimized, LLM responses varied to different degrees. These findings highlight a consideration about the inherently limited consistency (test-retest reliability) of LLMs -- even when the temperature is set to zero -- and the need for caution when using LLM-generated code reviews to make real-world decisions. △ Less

Submitted 28 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

Predicting Expert Evaluations in Software Code Reviews

Authors: Yegor Denisov-Blanch, Igor Ciobanu, Simon Obstbaum, Michal Kosinski

Abstract: Manual code reviews are an essential but time-consuming part of software development, often leading reviewers to prioritize technical issues while skipping valuable assessments. This paper presents an algorithmic model that automates aspects of code review typically avoided due to their complexity or subjectivity, such as assessing coding time, implementation time, and code complexity. Instead of… ▽ More Manual code reviews are an essential but time-consuming part of software development, often leading reviewers to prioritize technical issues while skipping valuable assessments. This paper presents an algorithmic model that automates aspects of code review typically avoided due to their complexity or subjectivity, such as assessing coding time, implementation time, and code complexity. Instead of replacing manual reviews, our model adds insights that help reviewers focus on more impactful tasks. Calibrated using expert evaluations, the model predicts key metrics from code commits with strong correlations to human judgments (r = 0.82 for coding time, r = 0.86 for implementation time). By automating these assessments, we reduce the burden on human reviewers and ensure consistent analysis of time-consuming areas, offering a scalable solution alongside manual reviews. This research shows how automated tools can enhance code reviews by addressing overlooked tasks, supporting data-driven decisions and improving the review process. △ Less

Submitted 23 September, 2024; originally announced September 2024.