Cited by 235Digital Media Forensic DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

Deepfake Detection: Current Challenges and Next Steps

Open access
Lyu, Siwei·2020·2020 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW)

Abstract

High quality fake videos and audios generated by AI- algorithms (the deep fakes) have started to challenge the status of videos and audios as definitive evidence of events. In this paper, we highlight a few of these challenges and discuss the research opportunities in this direction.

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/icmew46912.2020.9105991

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • The authors of many surveys argued that better (higher-quality, more up-to-date, and more standard) deepfake datasets are needed to develop more effective deepfake detection methods.

    “The authors of many surveys (e.g., Lyu, 2020; Younus and Hasan, 2020; Deshmukh and Wankhade, 2021; Masood et al., 2023; Sandotra and Arora, 2024), argued that better (higher-quality, more up-to-date, and more standard) deepfake datasets are needed to develop more effective deepfake detection methods.”

    From Deepfake: definitions, performance metrics and standards, datasets, and a meta-review (2024) · cites this paper as Lyu, 2020

    Section 2.1, “Limitations,” argues that existing deepfake datasets contain low-quality artifacts that can make detection performance less relevant in real-world use; it also reports poor transfer between datasets. This supports the need for higher-quality datasets, but the paper does not specifically call for more up-to-date or standardized datasets. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Current DeepFake generation methods cannot produce a fine mapping of color shades for hair with respect to the human face.

    “The author tried to raise a deep concern about one of the critical disadvantages of the current DeepFake generation methods that cannot produce a fine mapping of color shades for hair with respect to the human face.”

    From A Comprehensive Review of DeepFake Detection Using Advanced Machine Learning and Fusion Methods (2023) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) calls the inability to produce good details, including facial hair, a critical disadvantage of current DeepFake generation methods. The Limitations section also notes color mismatch in videos from existing datasets. Neither passage says the methods cannot finely map hair color shades relative to the face. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Lyu (2020) and Masood et al. (2023) suggested that social media laundering effects in training data need to be considered and the evaluation of datasets improved.

    “Lyu (2020) and Masood et al. (2023) also suggested that we need to consider social media laundering effects in training data and improve the evaluation of datasets.”
  • Some authors of the 15 survey papers used a broader definition of deepfake, e.g., Lyu (2020) defined it as "high quality fake videos and audios generated by AI algorithms."

    “some used a broader definition, e.g., Lyu (2020) defined deepfake as “high quality fake videos and audios generated by AI algorithms.””
  • Traditional digital media forensics often rely on image metadata that are not available for many of today's most concerning deepfakes, which typically appear first on social media platforms stripped of such metadata.

    “traditional digital media forensics, which often rely on image metadata (14) that are not available for many of today’s most concerning deepfakes, which typically appear first on social media platforms stripped of such metadata (15, 16).”

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

4 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Falko Matern, Christian Riess, and Marc Stamminger, "Ex- ploiting visual artifacts to expose deepfakes and face manip- ulations," in IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW), 2019.
  2. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio, "Generative adversarial nets," in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2014, pp. 2672-2680.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lyu, S.
Affiliations
University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Lyu, Siwei
Venue
2020 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-07
Pages
1-6
OpenAlex
W3012725859
Cited by
234
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 5
FWCI
9.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • IEEE RESOURCE CENTERS
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
deepfake detection, synthetic media, fake videos, AI-generated content, digital evidence, 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