Cited by 75Digital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisMisinformation and Its Impacts

Mastering Deepfake Detection: A Cutting-Edge Approach to Distinguish GAN and Diffusion-Model Images

Open access
Guarnera, Luca, Giudice, Oliver, Battiato, Sebastiano·2024·ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications

Abstract

Detecting and recognizing deepfakes is a pressing issue in the digital age. In this study, we first collected a dataset of pristine images and fake ones properly generated by nine different Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) architectures and four Diffusion Models (DM). The dataset contained a total of 83,000 images, with equal distribution between the real and deepfake data. Then, to address different deepfake detection and recognition tasks, we proposed a hierarchical multi-level approach. At the first level, we classified real images from AI-generated ones. At the second level, we distinguished between images generated by GANs and DMs. At the third level (composed of two additional sub-levels), we recognized the specific GAN and DM architectures used to generate the synthetic data. Experimental results demonstrated that our approach achieved more than 97% classification accuracy, outperforming existing state-of-the-art methods. The models obtained in the different levels turn out to be robust to various attacks such as JPEG compression (with different quality factor values) and resize (and others), demonstrating that the framework can be used and applied in real-world contexts (such as the analysis of multimedia data shared in the various social platforms) for support even in forensic investigations to counter the illicit use of these powerful and modern generative models. We are able to identify the specific GAN and DM architecture used to generate the image, which is critical in tracking down the source of the deepfake. Our hierarchical multi-level approach to deepfake detection and recognition shows promising results in identifying deepfakes allowing focus on underlying task by improving (about 2% on the average) standard multiclass flat detection systems. The proposed method has the potential to enhance the performance of deepfake detection systems, aid in the fight against the spread of fake images, and safeguard the authenticity of digital media.

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 · 10.1145/3652027

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Traditional detection methods rely on classical machine learning models and often struggle with generalization and scalability when confronted with the latest GANs and advanced deep learning architectures.

    “Traditional detection methods [3], [4] rely on classical machine learning models; however, these approaches often struggle with generalization and scalability when confronted with the latest generative adversarial networks (GANs) and advanced deep learning architectures that are used to create deepfakes [5].”

    From Quantum-Trained Convolutional Neural Network for Deepfake Audio Detection (2025) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Discussion and Future Works section says state-of-the-art methods can fail to generalize and that classification performance degrades as more generative architectures are included, mainly because of diffusion-model images. It does not establish a scalability problem, and the Comparison with State of the Art Methods section says the tested methods generalized well when distinguishing among GAN architectures. The statement about traditional methods relying on classical machine learning is attached to citations [3] and [4], not this source [5]. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Current state-of-the-art methods have proven to be very effective in detecting deepfake content generated by GAN architectures and Diffusion Models (DMs), demonstrating the ability to specialize not only in recognizing the architecture but also in identifying the specific pattern within the creation process.

    “Current state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods have proven to be very effective in detecting deepfake content generated by GAN architectures [93,94,95] and Diffusion Models (DMs) [96,97], demonstrating the ability to specialize not only in recognizing the architecture but also in identifying the specific pattern within the creation process.”

    From Deepfake Media Forensics: Status and Future Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [96]

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: 13

  1. Wonwoong Cho, Sungha Choi, David Keetae Park, Inkyu Shin, and Jaegul Choo. 2019. Image-to-Image Translation via Group-Wise Deep Whitening-and-Coloring Transformation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10639ś10647.
  2. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  3. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative Adversarial Nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2672ś2680.
  4. Diego Gragnaniello, Davide Cozzolino, Francesco Marra, Giovanni Poggi, and Luisa Verdoliva. 2021. Are GAN Generated Images Easy to Detect? A Critical Analysis of the State-of-the-art. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). IEEE, 1ś6.
  5. Luca Guarnera, Oliver Giudice, Matthias Nießner, and Sebastiano Battiato. 2022. On the Exploitation of Deepfake Model Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 61ś70.
  6. Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising Difusion Probabilistic Models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 6840ś6851.
  7. Tero Karras, Timo Aila, Samuli Laine, and Jaakko Lehtinen. 2018. Progressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variation. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) 2018.
  8. Alexander Quinn Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob Mcgrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. 2022. GLIDE: Towards Photorealistic Image Generation and Editing with Text-Guided Difusion Models. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 16784ś16804.
  9. Zeyang Sha, Zheng Li, Ning Yu, and Yang Zhang. 2022. DE-FAKE: Detection and Attribution of Fake Images Generated by Text-to-Image Difusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06998 (2022). · arXiv
  10. Sergey Sinitsa and Ohad Fried. 2023. Deep Image Fingerprint: Accurate And Low Budget Synthetic Image Detector. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10762 (2023). · arXiv
  11. Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. 2015. Deep Unsupervised Learning Using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2256ś2265.
  12. Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. 2019. Eicientnet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 6105ś6114.
  13. Run Wang, Felix Juefei-Xu, Lei Ma, Xiaofei Xie, Yihao Huang, Jian Wang, and Yang Liu. 2021. FakeSpotter: a Simple Yet Robust Baseline for Spotting AI-Synthesized Fake Faces. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artiicial Intelligence. 3444ś3451.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guarnera, L., Giudice, O., & Battiato, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Catania (IT)
  • Bank of Italy (IT)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications
Published
2024-09-12
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
1-24
ISSN
  • 1551-6857 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6865
OpenAlex
W4392623241
Cited by
74
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 14
FWCI
10.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing Communications and Applications (publishedVersion)
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, generative adversarial networks, diffusion models, JPEG compression robustness, image forensics

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