Cited by 224Digital Media Forensic DetectionBiometric Identification and SecurityMisinformation and Its Impacts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. shapley, 1953, The Value of an n-person Game Contributions to the Theory of Games, 2, 307
  2. hernandez-ortega, 2019, Deepfake
  3. zhang, 0, S3fd: Single shot scale-invariant face detector, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 192
  4. kowalski, 2018, Faceswap

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 224

Metadata

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