Detecting and Grounding Multi-Modal Media Manipulation and Beyond
Open accessAbstract
Misinformation has become a pressing issue. Fake media, in both visual and textual forms, is widespread on the web. Whilevarious deepfake detection and text fake news detection methods have been proposed, they are only designed for single-modality forgery based on binary classification, let alone analyzing and reasoning subtle forgery traces across different modalities. In this paper, we highlight a new research problem for multi-modal fake media, namelyDetectingandGroundingMulti-ModalMediaManipulation (DGM4).DGM4aims to not only detect the authenticity of multi-modal media, but also ground the manipulated content, which requires deeper reasoning of multi-modal media manipulation. To support a large-scale investigation, we construct the first DGM4 dataset. Moreover, we propose a novelHierArchicalMulti-modalManipulation rEasoning tRansformer (HAMMER) to fully capture the fine-grained interaction between different modalities. HAMMER performs 1) manipulation-aware contrastive learning between two uni-modal encoders as shallow manipulation reasoning, and 2) modality-aware cross-attention by multi-modal aggregator as deep manipulation reasoning. Dedicated manipulation detection and grounding heads are integrated from shallow to deep levels based on the interacted multi-modal information. To exploit more fine-grained contrastive learning for cross-modal semantic alignment, we further integrate Manipulation-Aware Contrastive Loss with Local View and construct a more advanced modelHAMMER++Finally, we build an extensive benchmark and set up rigorous evaluation metrics for this new research problem. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate the superiority ofHAMMERandHAMMER++; several valuable observations are also revealed to facilitate future research in multi-modal media manipulation..
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?
The performance of any deepfake detection method is highly dependent on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the datasets used for development.
“The performance of any deepfake detection method is highly dependent on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the datasets used for development [18, 21, 25, 40, 44, 47, 49, 51, 52, 61, 63, 69, 72, 75].”
From AV-Deepfake1M: A Large-Scale LLM-Driven Audio-Visual Deepfake Dataset (2024) · cites this paper as [52]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 70 · Cited by 53
- Authors
- Shao, R., Wu, T., Wu, J., Nie, L., & Liu, Z.
- Affiliations
- Harbin Institute of Technology (CN)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
- Published
- 2024-08
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 5556-5574
- ISSN
- 0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-9292
- 1939-3539
- OpenAlex
- W4391952560
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 6
- FWCI
- 7.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62306090, 62236003, 62376069)
- Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CAST (2023QNRC001)
- Ministry of Education - Singapore
- MOE AcRF Tier 2 (MOE-T2EP20221- 0012)
- NTU NAP
- RIE2020 Industry Alignment Fund
- 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 › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- misinformation, deepfake detection, cross-modal reasoning, contrastive learning, cross-attention, multimodal dataset
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