The DOI matches its Crossref record; 201 of the 213 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deepfakes and beyond: A Survey of face manipulation and fake detection
Open accessAbstract
The free access to large-scale public databases, together with the fast progress of deep learning techniques, in particular Generative Adversarial Networks, have led to the generation of very realistic fake content with its corresponding implications towards society in this era of fake news. This survey provides a thorough review of techniques for manipulating face images including DeepFake methods, and methods to detect such manipulations. In particular, four types of facial manipulation are reviewed: i) entire face synthesis, ii) identity swap (DeepFakes), iii) attribute manipulation, and iv) expression swap. For each manipulation group, we provide details regarding manipulation techniques, existing public databases, and key benchmarks for technology evaluation of fake detection methods, including a summary of results from those evaluations. Among all the aspects discussed in the survey, we pay special attention to the latest generation of DeepFakes, highlighting its improvements and challenges for fake detection. In addition to the survey information, we also discuss open issues and future trends that should be considered to advance in the field.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These methods are typically very effective when the target video has been generated with a manipulation present in training, and almost useless otherwise [57, 58].”
From Audio-Visual Person-of-Interest DeepFake Detection (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recent works on adversarial perturbation attacks to fool DNN-based detectors make the deepfake detection task more difficult [157, 171–174].”
From Deep learning for deepfakes creation and detection: A survey (2022) · cites this paper as [157]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In fact, they highlight several instances where various fake detection techniques are already based on the synthesis of various information sources, such as steroids and DL features, spatial and spectral characteristics, or other combinations thereof.”
From Deepfakes: current and future trends (2024) · cites this paper as Tolosana et al. (2020)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“They lack a comprehensive experimental evaluation to demonstrate the practical eicacy of state-of-the-art methods.”
From DEEPFAKER: A Unified Evaluation Platform for Facial Deepfake and Detection Models (2024) · cites this paper as [68]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This review di ff ers from previous reviews, which focus primarily on the performance of automated deepfake detectors [1].”
From Human Performance in Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“according to the surveys (Verdoliva 2020; Nguyen et al. 2019d; Tolosana et al. 2020; Lyu 2020), GANs are the mainstream baseline technique.”
From Countering Malicious DeepFakes: Survey, Battleground, and Horizon (2022) · cites this paper as Tolosana et al. 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“according to the consensus in the DeepFake field (Mirsky and Lee 2021; Verdoliva 2020; Tolosana et al. 2020), there are mainly four categories based on their function: entire face synthesis, attribute manipulation, identity swap, and expression swap”
From Countering Malicious DeepFakes: Survey, Battleground, and Horizon (2022) · cites this paper as Tolosana et al. 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Despite significant accuracy improvements in existing detection models, their inherent opacity limits their practical application in high-risk areas such as forensic investigations and news verification.”
From From Black Boxes to Glass Boxes: Explainable AI for Trustworthy Deepfake Forensics (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The work in Tolosana et al. (2020) implies that feature-level fusion approaches might offer a superior adaptability for deepfake detection in various contexts.”
From Deepfakes: current and future trends (2024) · cites this paper as Tolosana et al. (2020)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Existing studies and reviews on deepfake detection have predominantly concentrated on AI-based detection methods [1, 11].”
From Human Performance in Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The Unsupervised Cross-Modal Inconsistencies [57] model obtained the second-best performance, with an AUC of 0 . 968 .”
From Contextual Cross-Modal Attention for Audio-Visual Deepfake Detection and Localization (2024) · cites this paper as [57]
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.
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404
Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition
Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.1556 · Cited by 114,148
ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · Cited by 65,333
Going deeper with convolutions
Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y., Sermanet, P., Reed, S., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V., & Rabinovich, A. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298594 · Cited by 48,562
Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision
Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., & Wojna, Z. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.308 · Cited by 32,138
Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks
Zhu, J.-Y., Park, T., Isola, P., & Efros, A. A. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.244 · Cited by 23,602
Image-to-Image Translation with Conditional Adversarial Networks
Isola, P., Zhu, J.-Y., Zhou, T., & Efros, A. A. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.632 · Cited by 22,930
GAN（Generative Adversarial Nets）
淳司, 柴. (2017) · Journal of Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Intelligent Informatics · doi:10.3156/jsoft.29.5_177_2 · Cited by 20,507
Xception: Deep Learning with Depthwise Separable Convolutions
Chollet, F. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.195 · Cited by 20,380
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Raja, 2020, Workshop on Deepfakes and Presentation Attacks in Biometrics
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Lip Sync Expert Is All You Need for Speech to Lip Generation In the Wild
Prajwal, K. R., Mukhopadhyay, R., Namboodiri, V. P., & Jawahar, C. V. (2020) · Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia · doi:10.1145/3394171.3413532 · Cited by 897
Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Literature Review
Rana, M. S., Nobi, M. N., Murali, B., & Sung, A. H. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3154404 · Cited by 573
Masood, M., Nawaz, M., Malik, K. M., Javed, A., Irtaza, A., & Malik, H. (2023) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-022-03766-z · Cited by 543
Neural Fields in Visual Computing and Beyond
Xie, Y., Takikawa, T., Saito, S., Litany, O., Yan, S., Khan, N., Tombari, F., Tompkin, J., Sitzmann, V., & Sridhar, S. (2022) · Computer Graphics Forum · doi:10.1111/cgf.14505 · Cited by 617
Two-Branch Recurrent Network for Isolating Deepfakes in Videos
Masi, I., Killekar, A., Mascarenhas, R. M., Gurudatt, S. P., & AbdAlmageed, W. (2020) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58571-6_39 · Cited by 471
Metadata
- Authors
- Tolosana, R., Vera-Rodriguez, R., Fierrez, J., Morales, A., & Ortega-Garcia, J.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
- ORCID
- Morales, Aythami
- Venue
- Information Fusion
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-12
- Volume
- 64
- Pages
- 131-148
- ISSN
- 1566-2535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2998718632
- Semantic Scholar
- 5434f7c3b212a83d3f01949048ed1da114758cff
- Cited by
- 1,237
- References
- 213
- Citations by year
- 2026: 238 · 2025: 264 · 2024: 200 · 2023: 166 · 2022: 181 · 2021: 131 · 2020: 57
- FWCI
- 52.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Information Fusion (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Hispana (submittedVersion)
- Biblos-e Archivo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Federación Española de Enfermedades Raras (RTI2018-101248-B-I00)
- Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (MFC2018)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
- Keywords
- deepfakes, face manipulation, generative adversarial networks, face synthesis, fake news, benchmark dataset
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
