Cited by 225Digital Media Forensic DetectionBiometric Identification and SecurityMisinformation and Its Impacts

Implicit identity leakage: The stumbling block to improving deepfake detection generalization

Open access
Dong, Shichao, Wang, Jin, Ji, Renhe, Liang, Jiajun, Fan, Haoqiang, Ge, Zheng·2023·2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

In this paper, we analyse the generalization ability of binary classifiers for the task of deepfake detection. We find that the stumbling block to their generalization is caused by the unexpected learned identity representation on images. Termed as the Implicit Identity Leakage, this phenomenon has been qualitatively and quantitatively verified among various DNNs. Furthermore, based on such understanding, we propose a simple yet effective method named the ID-unaware Deepfake Detection Model to reduce the influence of this phenomenon. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art in both in-dataset and cross-dataset evaluation. The code is available at https://github.com/megvii-research/CADDM.

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/cvpr52729.2023.00389

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • Recent methods still face challenges, often learning dataset-specific cues that fail to detect unseen forgery samples.

    “Despite these efforts, recent methods still face challenges, often learning dataset-specific cues that fail to detect unseen forgery samples.”
  • Using Adam as the optimizer is a common setting, and a substantial number of deepfake detection methods in existing literature have adopted this configuration.

    “Using Adam as the optimizer can be considered a common setting, and a substantial number of deepfake detection methods in existing literature have adopted this configuration (paper [20, 27, 26, 3, 12]).”

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

3 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. FirstName Alpher. Frobnication. IEEE TPAMI, 12(1):234- 778, 2002.
  2. FirstName Alpher and FirstName Fotheringham-Smythe. Frobnication revisited. Journal of Foo, 13(1):234-778, 2003.
  3. FirstName Alpher, FirstName Fotheringham-Smythe, and FirstName Gamow. Can a machine frobnicate? Journal of Foo, 14(1):234-778, 2004.
  4. FirstName Alpher and FirstName Gamow. Can a computer frobnicate? In CVPR, pages 234-778, 2005.
  5. Davide Cozzolino, Andreas Rössler, Justus Thies, Matthias Nießner, and Luisa Verdoliva. Id-reveal: Identity-aware deepfake video detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15108- 15117, 2021.
  6. Shichao Dong, Jin Wang, Jiajun Liang, Haoqiang Fan, and Renhe Ji. Explaining deepfake detection by analysing image matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09679, 2022. · arXiv
  7. Ross Girshick. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE inter- national conference on computer vision, pages 1440-1448, 2015. 5, 8
  8. Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens van der Maaten, and Kil- ian Q. Weinberger. Densely connected convolutional net- works. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21-26, 2017, pages 2261-2269. IEEE Computer Society, 2017.
  9. Falko Matern, C. Riess, and M. Stamminger. Exploiting vi- sual artifacts to expose deepfakes and face manipulations. 2019 IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Work- shops (WACVW), pages 83-92, 2019.
  10. Yuyang Qian, Guojun Yin, Lu Sheng, Zixuan Chen, and Jing Shao. Thinking in frequency: Face forgery detection by min- ing frequency-aware clues. In ECCV, 2020.
  11. Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE in- ternational conference on computer vision, pages 618-626, 2017.
  12. Ke Sun, Bin Xiao, Dong Liu, and Jingdong Wang. Deep high-resolution representation learning for human pose es- timation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5693- 5703, 2019.
  13. Justus Thies, Michael Zollhöfer, and Matthias Nießner. De- ferred neural rendering: Image synthesis using neural tex- tures. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 38(4):1-12, 2019. 5
  14. Justus Thies, Michael Zollhofer, Marc Stamminger, Chris- tian Theobalt, and Matthias Nießner. Face2face: Real-time face capture and reenactment of rgb videos. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2387-2395, 2016. 1, 5
  15. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Isabelle Guyon, Ulrike von Luxburg, Samy Bengio, Hanna M. Wallach, Rob Fergus, S. V. N. Vishwanathan, and Roman Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: An- nual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008, 2017.
  16. Shifeng Zhang, Xiangyu Zhu, Zhen Lei, Hailin Shi, Xiaobo Wang, and Stan Z Li. S3fd: Single shot scale-invariant face detector. In Proceedings of the IEEE international confer- ence on computer vision, pages 192-201, 2017. 4
  17. Hanqing Zhao, Wenbo Zhou, Dongdong Chen, Tianyi Wei, Weiming Zhang, and Nenghai Yu. Multi-attentional deep- fake detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2185- 2194, 2021. 1, 3, 7
  18. Bolei Zhou, Aditya Khosla, Agata Lapedriza, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. Learning deep features for discrimina- tive localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2921-2929, 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dong, S., Wang, J., Ji, R., Liang, J., Fan, H., & Ge, Z.
Affiliations
Megvii (China) (CN)
Venue
2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2023-06
Pages
3994-4004
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386071484
Cited by
220
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 6
FWCI
23.53
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)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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, generalization, identity representation, cross-dataset evaluation, binary classification

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