Interpretable-through-prototypes deepfake detection for diffusion models
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models
Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., & Ommer, B. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01042 · Cited by 15,880 · see citing works
Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis
Dhariwal, P., & Nichol, A. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.05233 · Cited by 3,362 · see citing works
Celeb-DF: A Large-Scale Challenging Dataset for DeepFake Forensics
Li, Y., Yang, X., Sun, P., Qi, H., & Lyu, S. (2020) · 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00327 · Cited by 1,846 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Additionally, Celeb-DF [25] and DeeperForensics-1.”
Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120903408 · Cited by 978 · see citing works
DeeperForensics-1.0: A Large-Scale Dataset for Real-World Face Forgery Detection
Jiang, L., Li, R., Wu, W., Qian, C., & Loy, C. C. (2020) · 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00296 · Cited by 599 · see citing works
Combining EfficientNet and Vision Transformers for Video Deepfake Detection
Coccomini, D. A., Messina, N., Gennaro, C., & Falchi, F. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06433-3_19 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Deepfakes: Deceptions, mitigations, and opportunities
Mustak, M., Salminen, J., Mäntymäki, M., Rahman, A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113368 · Cited by 209 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Additionally, various records [27] show a dramatic increase in deepfake-based theft and fraud over recent years.”
BackgroundDeepfakeStack: A Deep Ensemble-based Learning Technique for Deepfake Detection
Rana, M. S., & Sung, A. H. (2020) · 2020 7th IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing (CSCloud)/2020 6th IEEE International Conference on Edge Computing and Scalable Cloud (EdgeCom) · doi:10.1109/cscloud-edgecom49738.2020.00021 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deepfake video detection: challenges and opportunities
Kaur, A., Noori Hoshyar, A., Saikrishna, V., Firmin, S., & Xia, F. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10810-6 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
“On the other hand, VAEs generate samples with lower fidelity, but they provide a wider range of diversity.”
Influential
- 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