Cited by 405Digital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisMisinformation and Its Impacts

Global Texture Enhancement for Fake Face Detection in the Wild

Open access
Liu, Zhengzhe, Qi, Xiaojuan, Torr, Philip H.S.·2020·2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) can generate realistic fake face images that can easily fool human beings. On the contrary, a common Convolutional Neural Network(CNN) discriminator can achieve more than99.9%accuracyin discerning fake/real images. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study on fake/real faces, and have two important observations: firstly, the texture of fake faces is substantially different from real ones; secondly, global texture statistics are more robust to image editing and transferable to fake faces from different GANs and datasets. Motivated by the above observations, we propose a new architecture coined as Gram-Net, which leverages global image texture representations for robust fake image detection. Experimental results on several datasets demonstrate that our Gram-Netoutperforms existing approaches. Especially, our Gram-Netis more robust to image editings, e.g. down-sampling, JPEGcompression, blur, and noise. More importantly, our Gram-Net generalizes significantly better in detecting fake faces from GAN models not seen in the training phase and can perform decently in detecting fake natural images.

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 · 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00808

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Common visual artifacts include lighting and color mismatches, unusual facial textures, irregular frequency patterns, and inconsistent edge blending.

    “Common visual artifacts include lighting and color mismatches [51], unusual facial textures [52], irregular frequency patterns [56], and inconsistent edge blending [59].”
  • The frequency spectrum of GAN-generated images often contains distinctive patterns - 'checkerboards', particularly in the middle and high-frequency bands.

    “Several studies have shown that the frequency spectrum of GAN-generated images often contains distinctive patterns - 'checkerboards', particularly in the middle and high-frequency bands [85-89].”

    From Deepfake detection across image, video, and audio: a comprehensive survey with empirical evaluation of generalization and robustness (2026) · cites this paper as [88]

    Section 3.3 analyzes differences in texture contrast between real and GAN-generated images using gray-level co-occurrence matrices, not frequency spectra. Searches for checkerboards, Fourier spectra, and middle- or high-frequency bands found no passage addressing the claimed spectral pattern. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and Léon Bottou. Wasser- stein generative adversarial networks. In International Con- ference on Machine Learning, pages 214-223, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Z., Qi, X., & Torr, P. H. S.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-06
Pages
8057-8066
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3034795015
Cited by
401
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 102 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
13.26
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Royal Academy of Engineering
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (EP/N019474/1)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/N019474/1, EP/M013774/1, EP/M013774/, ERC-2012-AdG 321162-HELIOS, Seebibyte EP/M013774/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
face forgery detection, deepfake detection, GAN-generated images

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