Cited by 136Digital Media Forensic DetectionFace recognition and analysisGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

CORE: Consistent Representation Learning for Face Forgery Detection

Open access
Ni, Yunsheng, Meng, Depu, Yu, Changqian, Quan, Chengbin, Ren, Dongchun, Zhao, Youjian·2022·2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)

Abstract

Face manipulation techniques develop rapidly and arouse widespread public concerns. Despite that vanilla convolutional neural networks achieve acceptable performance, they suffer from the overfitting issue. To relieve this issue, there is a trend to introduce some erasing-based augmentations. We find that these methods indeed attempt to implicitly induce more consistent representations for different augmentations via assigning the same label for different augmented images. However, due to the lack of explicit regularization, the consistency between different representations is less satisfactory. Therefore, we constrain the consistency of different representations explicitly and propose a simple yet effective framework, COnsistent REpresentation Learning (CORE). Specifically, we first capture the different representations with different augmentations, then regularize the cosine distance of the representations to enhance the consistency. Extensive experiments (in-dataset and cross-dataset) demonstrate that CORE performs favorably against state-of-the-art face forgery detection methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/niyunsheng/CORE.

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/cvprw56347.2022.00011

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • Depending on specific modalities, augmentation operations are various, including (i) image modality: Gaussian blur, JPEG compression, random crop; (ii) video modality: temporal dropout, temporal repeat, clip-level blending; (iii) audio modality: band-pass filters, timeand pitch-shifting, RawBoost.

    “Depending on specific modalities, augmentation operations are various, including (i) image modality: Gaussian blur, JPEG compression, random crop [159, 160]; (ii) video modality: temporal dropout, temporal repeat, clip-level blending [161]; (iii) audio modality: band-pass filters, timeand pitch-shifting, RawBoost [151, 154].”

    From Deepfake detection across image, video, and audio: a comprehensive survey with empirical evaluation of generalization and robustness (2026) · cites this paper as [159]

    Section 4.2 (Implementation Details; page unavailable) lists Gauss blur and Random Resized Crop as image augmentations. It also lists “quality compression,” but does not specify JPEG compression. The video and audio examples have separate citations and are not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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: 3

  1. Saniat Javid Sohrawardi, Akash Chintha, Bao Thai, So- vantharith Seng, Andrea Hickerson, Raymond Ptucha, and Matthew Wright. Poster: Towards robust open-world detec- tion of deepfakes. In ACM SIGSAC CCS, 2019. 1
  2. Ruben Tolosana, Sergio Romero-Tapiador, Julian Fierrez, and Ruben Vera-Rodriguez. Deepfakes evolution: Analysis of facial regions and fake detection performance. In ICPR. Springer, 2021. 7
  3. Hanqing Zhao, Wenbo Zhou, Dongdong Chen, Tianyi Wei, Weiming Zhang, and Nenghai Yu. Multi-attentional deep- fake detection. In CVPR, 2021. 2, 7, 8

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ni, Y., Meng, D., Yu, C., Quan, C., Ren, D., & Zhao, Y.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Meituan (China) (CN)
Venue
2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2022-06
Pages
12-21
OpenAlex
W4292793883
Cited by
136
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 1
FWCI
8.16
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 › Face recognition and analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
face forgery detection, face manipulation, representation learning, consistency regularization, overfitting, cross-dataset generalization

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