Deepfake Detection by Exploiting Surface Anomalies: The Surfake Approach
Open accessAbstract
The ever-increasing use of synthetically generated content in different sectors of our everyday life, one for all media information, poses a strong need for deepfake detection tools in order to avoid the proliferation of altered messages. The process to identify manipulated content, in particular images and videos, is basically performed by looking for the presence of some inconsistencies and/or anomalies specifically due to the fake generation process. Different techniques exist in the scientific literature that exploit diverse ad-hoc features in order to highlight possible modifications. In this paper, we propose to investigate how deepfake creation can impact on the characteristics that the whole scene had at the time of the acquisition. In particular, when an image (video) is captured the overall geometry of the scene (e.g. surfaces) and the acquisition process (e.g. illumination) determine a univocal environment that is directly represented by the image pixel values; all these intrinsic relations are possibly changed by the deepfake generation process. By resorting to the analysis of the characteristics of the surfaces depicted in the image it is possible to obtain a descriptor usable to train a CNN for deepfake detection: we refer to such an approach as SurFake. Experimental results carried out on the FF + + dataset for different kinds of deep-fake forgeries and diverse deep learning models confirm that such a feature can be adopted to discriminate between pristine and altered images; furthermore, experiments witness that it can also be combined with visual data to provide a certain improvement in terms of detection accuracy.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Deepfake detection has so far been approached by passive techniques that operate after the fact, i.e., after the forged content has been created, distributed and potentially manipulated.
“Deepfake detection has been approached so far by means of passive techniques [185,186,187] that operate after the fact, meaning they are applied after the forged content has been created, distributed, and potentially manipulated.”
From Deepfake Media Forensics: Status and Future Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [186]
The Introduction and Related Works describe detection methods that examine traces in already-manipulated images or videos, supporting the claim that they operate after forgery. The paper does not say detection must occur after distribution; the Introduction instead describes detection as helping prevent the diffusion of forged media. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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 41 · Cited by 27
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [12]12. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversar- ial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 1, 2
- [16]16. Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denois- ing diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840-6851, 2020. 1, 2
- [37]37. Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 6105-6114. PMLR, 2019. 6
- [41]41. Wenqi Xian, Zhengqi Li, Matthew Fisher, Jonathan Eisenmann, Eli Shechtman, and Noah Snavely. Up- rightnet: geometry-aware camera orientation estima- tion from single images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 9974-9983, 2019. 3, 4, 5
- Authors
- Ciamarra, A., Caldelli, R., Becattini, F., Seidenari, L., & Del Bimbo, A.
- Affiliations
- Mercatorum University (IT)
- Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Telecomunicazioni (IT)
- University of Siena (IT)
- University of Florence (IT)
- University of Florence,Florence,Italy
- Venue
- 2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2024-01-01
- Pages
- 1024-1033
- OpenAlex
- W4394842561
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 5.57
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Use Siena air (University of Siena) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- H2020 (951911)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
- Keywords
- deepfake detection, surface irregularities, image forgery detection, synthetic content, scene geometry, illumination, CNN features, video forgery
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