Cited by 184Digital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFace recognition and analysis

Deepfakes Detection with Automatic Face Weighting

Open access
Montserrat, Daniel Mas, Hao, Hanxiang, Yarlagadda, S. K., Baireddy, Sriram, Shao, Ruiting, Horvath, Janos, Bartusiak, Emily, Yang, Justin +3 more·2020·2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)

Abstract

Altered and manipulated multimedia is increasingly present and widely distributed via social media platforms. Advanced video manipulation tools enable the generation of highly realistic-looking altered multimedia. While many methods have been presented to detect manipulations, most of them fail when evaluated with data outside of the datasets used in research environments. In order to address this problem, the Deepfake Detection Challenge (DFDC) provides a large dataset of videos containing realistic manipulations and an evaluation system that ensures that methods work quickly and accurately, even when faced with challenging data. In this paper, we introduce a method based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs) that extracts visual and temporal features from faces present in videos to accurately detect manipulations. The method is evaluated with the DFDC dataset, providing competitive results compared to other techniques.

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/cvprw50498.2020.00342

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • Deep neural network based detection approaches such as Xception, capsules networks, and EfficientNet outperform methods based on shallow CNNs, facial physical characteristics, or distortion features.

    “The recent availability of large deepfake video databases allowed researchers to train and test detection approaches based on very deep neural networks, such as Xception [1], capsules networks [8], EfficientNet [2], and discriminators of GANs used to generate synthetic images [9], which were shown to outperform the methods based on shallow CNNs, facial physical characteristics [10], [11], [12], [1”

    From Improving Generalization of Deepfake Detection With Data Farming and Few-Shot Learning (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Related Work section says that several deep-network models outperformed shallow networks in a supervised fake-video detection setting. The Experimental Results section evaluates Xception and EfficientNet and describes their accuracy as good. Our copy does not establish that capsule networks outperform shallow CNNs, or that the named deep-network approaches outperform methods based on facial physical characteristics or distortion features. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [1]1. I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, "Generative adversarial nets," Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2672-2680, De- cember 2014, Montreal, Canada. 1
  2. [2]2. I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning, MIT Press, 2016, http://www.deeplearningbook. org. 1, 2
  3. [4]4. E. Bailey, Adobe Photoshop: A Beginners Guide to Photo- shop Lightroom -The 52 Photoshop Lightroom Tricks You Didnt Know Existed!, vol. 1, CreateSpace Independent Pub- lishing Platform, 2016, North Charleston, SC. 1
  4. [29]29. P. Pérez, M. Gangnet, and A. Blake, "Poisson image edit- ing," Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer GRAPHics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 313- 318, July 2003, San Diego, California. 2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Montserrat, D. M., Hao, H., Yarlagadda, S. K., Baireddy, S., Shao, R., Horvath, J., Bartusiak, E., Yang, J., Guera, D., Zhu, F., & Delp, E. J.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Venue
2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-06
Pages
2851-2859
OpenAlex
W3020392129
Cited by
181
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9
FWCI
7.79
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)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
deepfake detection, video manipulation, DFDC, convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks, temporal features, visual features, social media misinformation

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