Cited by 154Digital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Incremental learning for the detection and classification of GAN-generated images

Open access
Marra, Francesco, Saltori, Cristiano, Boato, Giulia, Verdoliva, Luisa·2019·2019 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS)

Abstract

Current developments in computer vision and deep learning allow to automatically generate hyper-realistic images, hardly distinguishable from real ones. In particular, human face generation achieved a stunning level of realism, opening new opportunities for the creative industry but, at the same time, new scary scenarios where such content can be maliciously misused. Therefore, it is essential to develop innovative methodologies to automatically tell apart real from computer generated multimedia, possibly able to follow the evolution and continuous improvement of data in terms of quality and realism. In the last few years, several deep learning-based solutions have been proposed for this problem, mostly based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). Although results are good in controlled conditions, it is not clear how such proposals can adapt to real-world scenarios, where learning needs to continuously evolve as new types of generated data appear. In this work, we tackle this problem by proposing an approach based on incremental learning for the detection and classification of GAN-generated images. Experiments on a dataset comprising images generated by several GAN-based architectures show that the proposed method is able to correctly perform discrimination when new GANs are presented to the network.

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/wifs47025.2019.9035099

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • 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 [187]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes methods that inspect images to determine whether they are GAN-generated, including detection after compression. This supports detection after creation and some subsequent processing, but the paper does not establish that detection occurs only after distribution or that all deepfake-detection techniques to date are passive. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]1. I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, "Generative Adversarial Nets," in NIPS, 2014, pp. 2672-2680.
  2. [6]6. T. Karras, T. Aila, S. Laine, and J. Lehtinen, "Progressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variation," in ICLR, 2018.
  3. [23]23. D. P. Kingma and P. Dhariwal, "Glow: generative flow with invertible 1×1 convolutions," in NIPS, 2018, pp. 10 236-10 245.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marra, F., Saltori, C., Boato, G., & Verdoliva, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Naples Federico II (IT)
  • University of Trento (IT)
Venue
2019 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-12
Pages
1-6
ISSN
2157-4774 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2978778164
Cited by
154
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 13
FWCI
5.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
GAN-generated image detection, generative adversarial networks, incremental learning, continual learning, image classification, face synthesis, adversarial robustness

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