Cited by 700Digital Media Forensic DetectionFace recognition and analysisBiometric Identification and Security

Two-Stream Neural Networks for Tampered Face Detection

Open access
Zhou, Peng, Han, Xintong, Morariu, Vlad I., Davis, Larry S.·2017·2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)

Abstract

We propose a two-stream network for face tampering detection. We train GoogLeNet to detect tampering artifacts in a face classification stream, and train a patch based triplet network to leverage features capturing local noise residuals and camera characteristics as a second stream. In addition, we use two different online face swaping applications to create a new dataset that consists of 2010 tampered images, each of which contains a tampered face. We evaluate the proposed two-stream network on our newly collected dataset. Experimental results demonstrate the effectness of our method.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvprw.2017.229

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Most previous deepfake detectors perform well within-dataset but struggle on cross-dataset scenarios where training and testing data distributions differ.

    “Deepfake detection faces a critical generalization hurdle, with performance deteriorating when there is a mismatch between the distributions of training and testing data.”
  • The SwapMe and FaceSwap dataset contains 4,310 images, including 2,300 real images and 2,010 fake images created using FaceSwap and the SwapMe iOS app.

    “SwapMe and FaceSwap dataset (Zhou et al., 2017): This dataset contains 4,310 images, including 2,300 real images and 2,010 fake images created using FaceSwap22 and the SwapMe iOS app (now discontinued).”
  • The approach by Zhou et al. demonstrates superior performance and generalization capabilities compared to unimodal models.

    “This approach demonstrates superior performance and generalization capabilities compared to unimodal models.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, P., Han, X., Morariu, V. I., & Davis, L. S.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-07
Pages
1831-1839
OpenAlex
W2962958939
Cited by
700
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 131 · 2021: 102 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 12
FWCI
8.63
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
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 › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
Keywords
two-stream network, GoogLeNet, triplet network, camera characteristics, face swapping

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