Cited by 37Digital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisMisinformation and Its Impacts

Interpretable-through-prototypes deepfake detection for diffusion models

Aghasanli, Agil, Kangin, Dmitry, Angelov, Plamen·2023·2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW)

Abstract

The process of recognizing and distinguishing between real content and content generated by deep learning algorithms, often referred to as deepfakes, is known as deepfake detection. In order to counter the rising threat of deepfakes and maintain the integrity of digital media, research is now being done to create more reliable and precise detection techniques. Deep learning models, such as Stable Diffusion, have been able to generate more detailed and less blurry images in recent years. In this paper, we develop a deepfake detection technique to distinguish original and fake images generated by various Diffusion Models. The developed methodology for deepfake detection takes advantage of features from fine-tuned Vision Transformers (ViTs), combined with existing classifiers such as Support Vector Machines (SVM). We demonstrate the proposed methodology’s ability of interpretability-through-prototypes by analysing support vectors of the SVMs. Additionally, due to the novelty of the topic, there is a lack of open datasets for deepfake detection. Therefore, to evaluate the methodology, we have also created custom datasets based on various generative techniques of Diffusion Models on open datasets (ImageNet, FFHQ, Oxford-IIIT Pet). The code is available at https://github.com/lira-centre/DeepfakeDetection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/iccvw60793.2023.00053

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • Diffusion models can produce more realistic images compared to GANs and VAEs.

    “Diffusion models can produce more realistic images compared to GANs and VAEs (Aghasanli etal. 2023; Dhariwal and Nichol 2021).”

    From Deepfake video detection: challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as Aghasanli et al. 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aghasanli, A., Kangin, D., & Angelov, P.
Affiliations
Lancaster University (GB)
Venue
2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2023-10-02
Pages
467-474
ISSN
2473-9936 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390190266
Cited by
37
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 12
FWCI
3.96
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/R00692X/1)
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
deepfake detection, diffusion models, support vector machine, vision transformer, Stable Diffusion, generative AI

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