RAW-Bench: Robust Audio Watermarking Benchmark
Accompanying website for the paper:
A Comprehensive Real-World Assessment of Audio Watermarking Algorithms: Will They Survive Neural Codecs?
Yigitcan Özer, Woosung Choi, Joan Serrà, Mayank Kumar Singh, Wei-Hsiang Liao, Yuki Mitsufuji
To appear at Interspeech 2025, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
We introduce the Robust Audio Watermarking Benchmark (RAW-Bench), a benchmark for evaluating deep learning-based audio watermarking methods with standardized and systematic comparisons. To simulate real-world usage, we introduce a comprehensive audio attack pipeline with various distortions such as compression, background noise, and reverberation, along with a diverse test dataset including speech, environmental sounds, and music recordings. Evaluating four existing watermarking methods on RAW-Bench reveals two main insights: (i) neural compression techniques pose the most significant challenge, even when algorithms are trained with such compressions; and (ii) training with audio attacks generally improves robustness, although it is insufficient in some cases. Furthermore, we find that specific distortions, such as polarity inversion, time stretching, or reverb, seriously affect certain methods.
🔗 Links
- Paper on arXiv
- How to Prepare Datasets
- How to Reproduce
- pip Package (Coming Soon)
TODO
- Refactor core codebase
- Release benchmark evaluation code for reproduction
- Release fine-tuning & training pipeline (AudioSeal & SilentCipher + attack pipeline)
- Publish pip package
- Add documentation and tutorials
📖 Citation
If you find RAW-Bench useful in your research, please cite our paper:
@inproceedings{OezerChoiEtAl25_RAWBench_Interspeech,
author = {Yigitcan {\"O}zer and Woosung Choi and Joan Serr{\`{a}} and Mayank Kumar Singh and Wei-Hsiang Liao and Yuki Mitsufuji},
title = {A Comprehensive Real-World Assessment of Audio Watermarking Algorithms: Will They Survive Neural Codecs?},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech)},
address = {Rotterdam, The Netherlands},
year = {2025},
doi = {},
pages = {}
}
Metadata
Release files for raw-bench 0.1.0
For a detailed explanation of source distributions (sdists) and built distributions (wheels), please see the package formats documentation.
Source distribution (sdist)
| File | Size | Uploaded | Provenance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| raw_bench-0.1.0.tar.gz | 51.6 kB | Without provenance | Details |
Built distribution (wheel)
| File | Interpreter | ABI | Platform | Reset |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| raw_bench-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl | Python 3 | none | any | Details |
Total release size: 119.8 kB
Release files / raw_bench-0.1.0.tar.gz
| Download URL | raw_bench-0.1.0.tar.gz |
|---|---|
| Size | 51.6 kB |
| Tags | Source |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
7848fb40134d97433599a55f3703753fd1ffddcb50b8a328bb93063b4e72212b
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
4361661e3a0f0e5adfac0ea3da8164f3923c4715d9b499440d0ad072e11d05bf
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
No |
| Uploaded via |
twine/6.1.0 CPython/3.10.18
|
Release files / raw_bench-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl
| Download URL | raw_bench-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl |
|---|---|
| Size | 68.2 kB |
| Tags | Python 3 |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
8f67b94357742a2dd27c4c6e59c50b126431dbd5c1ca784e7b4e7d5a9381b6ab
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
16e8051d492e2b0bbf4e5799117f36e5a8a60e5d1ca22609bfc5155b5d31d87c
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
No |
| Uploaded via |
twine/6.1.0 CPython/3.10.18
|
Security for raw-bench 0.1.0
Provenance
Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.
No provenance found
None of the files in this release were uploaded with provenance metadata.
A note on package security
PyPI is a repository for distributing packages, not a service for auditing them. While third-party security researchers and our staff do their best to detect and remove malicious packages, PyPI cannot guarantee the quality, security or suitability of any given package.