Cited by 34Digital Media Forensic DetectionBiometric Identification and SecurityMisinformation and Its Impacts

Unmasking digital deceptions: An integrative review of deepfake detection, multimedia forensics, and cybersecurity challenges

Open access
Singh, Sonam, Dhumane, Amol·2025·MethodsX

Abstract

• Presents an in-depth review of deepfake generation and detection, highlighting AI methods such as GANs, face synthesis, and speech cloning. • Evaluates critically the weaknesses of biometric systems and the difficulties of cross-dataset testing for deepfake detection. • Suggest interdisciplinary solutions—such as explainable AI, federated learning, and policy frameworks—to counteract the social and cybersecurity implications of deepfakes. Deepfakes, which are driven by developments in generative AI, seriously jeopardize public trust, cybersecurity, and the veracity of information. This study offers a comprehensive analysis of the most recent methods for creating and detecting deepfakes in image, video, and audio modalities. With a focus on their advantages and disadvantages in cross-dataset and real-world scenarios, we compile the latest developments in transformer-based detection models, multimodal biometric defenses, and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). We provide implementation-level information such as pseudocode workflows, hyperparameter settings, and preprocessing pipelines for popular detection frameworks to improve reproducibility. We also examine the implications of cybersecurity, including identity theft and biometric spoofing, as well as policy-oriented solutions that incorporate federated learning, explainable AI, and ethical protections. By enriching technical insights with interdisciplinary perspectives, this review charts a roadmap for building robust, scalable, and trustworthy deepfake detection systems.

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 · 10.1016/j.mex.2025.103632

Cites

102 of 117 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?

  • The most accurate models may not always be the most suitable for live or platform-scale screening without cascading, compression, cloud offloading, or region-of-interest processing.

    “the most accurate models may not always be the most suitable for live or platform-scale screening without cascading, compression, cloud offloading, or region-of-interest processing.”

    From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Under estimated standard-GPU conditions at 224 × 224 resolution, CNN-based detectors achieve about 88-90% accuracy at roughly 28-30 fps, whereas transformer-based, multimodal, and hybrid detectors reach approximately 92-95% accuracy but often operate at only 18-22 fps.

    “Under estimated standard-GPU conditions at 224 × 224 resolution, CNN-based detectors achieve about 88-90% accuracy at roughly 28-30 fps, whereas transformer-based, multimodal, and hybrid detectors reach approximately 92-95% accuracy but often operate at only 18-22 fps [49].”

    From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [49]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [23]Jurišić T. Preotiuc-Pietro J. Hossain R. Multi-feature deepfake detection Proc. 2022 SIAM Int. Conf. Data Mining (SDM) 2022
  2. [37]A. Ismail, M. Elpeltagy, M.S. Zaki, and K. Eldahshan, “A new deep learning-based methodology for video deepfake,” MDPI, pp. 1–15, 2021. PMC8398984 34450855
  3. [39]Jiang Z. Qian L. Li Y. Xiong Z. Chen L. FaceSwap-detection: a robust face-swapping detection model Comput. Vis. Image Understand. 211 2021 103157 10.1016/j.cviu.2021.103157 · DOI
  4. [53]Jiang J. Lin S. Liu B. Zhang W. Yang W. Two-step face-swapping detection using alignment Neurocomputing 402 2020 169 177 10.1016/j.neucom.2020.03.059 · DOI
  5. [66]B. Dolhansky, J. Bitton, B. Pflaum, J. Lu, R. Howes, M. Wang, and C.C. Ferrer, “The Deepfake Detection Challenge (DFDC) dataset,” arXiv Prepr., arXiv:2006.07397, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.07397. · arXiv
  6. [69]C. Dong, X. Chen, R. Hu, J. Cao, and X. Li, “Mvss-net: multi-view multi-scale supervised networks for image manipulation detection,” arXiv Prepr. arXiv2112.08935, 2021. 35671312
  7. [78]Dosovitskiy A. Beyer L. Kolesnikov A. Weissenborn D. Zhai X. Unterthiner T. Houlsby ….N. An image is worth 16×16 words: transformers for image recognition at scale Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. (ICLR) 2021 [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11929 · arXiv
  8. [88]IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems Ethically Aligned design: A vision For Prioritizing Human Well-Being With Autonomous and Intelligent Systems 1st ed. 2019 IEEE Standards Association [Online]. Available: https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, S., & Dhumane, A.
Affiliations
Symbiosis International University (IN)
Corresponding author
Singh, Sonam
Venue
MethodsX
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-12
Volume
15
Pages
103632
ISSN
2215-0161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414441547
Cited by
24
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 5
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • MethodsX (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
deepfake detection, deepfake generation, multimedia forensics, generative adversarial networks, face synthesis, biometric spoofing, identity theft, cross-dataset evaluation, federated learning, explainable AI, cybersecurity, misinformation, AI ethics policy

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