Cited by 94Digital Media Forensic DetectionAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFace recognition and analysis

SSTNet: Detecting Manipulated Faces Through Spatial, Steganalysis and Temporal Features

Wu, Xi, Xie, Zhen, Gao, YuTao, Xiao, Yu·2020·ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

Abstract

Compared to conventional object detection which focuses on high-level image content, face manipulation detection pays more attention to low-level artifacts and temporal discrepancies. However, there are few methods considering both of these two characteristics. In this work, we propose a novel manipulation detection framework, named SSTNet, which detects tampered faces through Spatial, Steganalysis and Temporal features. Spatial features are extracted by a deep neural network for finding visible tampering traces like unnatural color, shape and texture. We propose a constraint on convolutional filters to extract steganalysis features for detecting hidden tampering artifacts like abnormal statistical characteristics of image pixels. Temporal features are extracted by a recurrent network for discovering inconsistency between consecutive frames. Experimental results on Face-Forensics++ dataset demonstrate that SSTNet outperforms other methods and achieves state-of-the-art performance on accuracy and robustness to compression. Furthermore, the generalization capability of SSTNet is verified on the GAN-based DeepFakes dataset.

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/icassp40776.2020.9053969

Cites

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?

  • Most existing deepfake detection methods model the problem as a vanilla binary classification (real/fake), using a backbone to extract global features and a binary classifier.

    “Most of them model deepfake detection as a vanilla binary classification problem, i.e, first use a backbone network to extract a global feature and then feed it into a binary classifier (real/fake).”

    From Multi-attentional Deepfake Detection (2021) · cites this paper as [45]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 94

Authors
Wu, X., Xie, Z., Gao, Y., & Xiao, Y.
Affiliations
Alibaba Group (China) (CN)
Venue
ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-05
Pages
2952-2956
ISSN
1520-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3015341856
Cited by
94
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
face manipulation detection, image forensics, steganalysis, spatial characteristics, temporal features, recurrent neural networks, face forensics, deepfakes, compression robustness

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