The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Artificial intelligence for deepfake detection: systematic review and impact analysis
Open accessAbstract
Deep learning and artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled deepfakes, prompting concerns about their social impact. deepfakes have detrimental effects in several businesses, despite their apparent benefits. We explore deepfake detection research and its social implications in this study. We examine capsule networks' ability to detect video deepfakes and their design implications. This strategy reduces parameters and provides excellent accuracy, making it a promising deepfake defense. The social significance of deepfakes is also highlighted, underlining the necessity to understand them. Despite extensive use of face swap services, nothing is known about deepfakes' social impact. The misuse of deepfakes in image-based sexual assault and public figure distortion, especially in politics, highlight the necessity for further research on their social impact. Using state-of-the-art deepfake detection methods like fake face and deepfake detectors and a broad forgery analysis tool reduces the damage deepfakes do. We inquire about to review deepfake detection research and its social impacts in this work. In this paper we analysed various deepfake methods, social impact with misutilization of deepfake technology, and finally giving clear analysis of existing machine learning models. We want to illuminate the potential effects of deepfakes on society and suggest solutions by combining study data.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Recent review evidence further supports the role of artificial intelligence as a central countermeasure against deepfakes”
From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“and limited direct comparability across heterogeneous datasets and protocols.”
From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“but the gap between training and validation/testing scores also suggests residual overfitting”
From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“These results confirm that AI-based detectors can achieve strong performance under controlled conditions”
From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“while also showing that headline accuracy values should be interpreted cautiously.”
From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“Representative deepfake-detection models with training, validation, and testing accuracies range from 94.2/91.8/90.5% for an RNN-based model to 99.1/97.5/97.2% for an ensemble model [48].”
From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“Additional examples include 98.5/96.2/95.8% for a CNN, 96.8/95.3/94.7% for a GAN-based model, 92.6% test accuracy for a real-time EfficientNet configuration, and 97.3/96.1/95.5% for a transfer-learning ResNet50 approach.”
From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes
Erokhin, D., & Komendantova, N. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17040347 · Cited by 3
“Representative deepfake-detection models with training, validation, and testing accuracies range from 94.2/91.8/90.5% for an RNN-based model to 99.1/97.5/97.2% for an ensemble model [48].”
InfluentialGupta, P. K., Gupta, S., Goel, L., Agarwal, A. K., Singh, A., & Ramesh, G. (2025) · Journal of Visualized Experiments · doi:10.3791/68426 · Cited by 3
Quantitative Dissection of Spatial, Temporal, and Frequency Features in Deepfake Detection
Tiwari, Y., Saxena, D., Hsu, F.-R., & Yadav, A. (2025) · International Conference on Computer, Electronics & Electrical Engineering & their Applications (IC2E3) · doi:10.1109/ic2e365635.2025.11166815 · Cited by 1
Comparison of Convolutional and Fully Connected Neural Networks for Durian Variety Classification
Voo, N. M., Ming, L. T., & Mei, L. Y. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Automatic Control and Intelligent Systems (I2CACIS) · doi:10.1109/i2cacis65476.2025.11100343
Deepfake detection using MobileNetV2 integrated with a support vector machine classifier
Satoto, B. D., Yasid, A., Rahmadhani, A. P., Khotimah, B. K., Irmawati, B., & Hamid, S. B. A. (2025) · EPJ Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202534401019 · Cited by 2
Architecture of a Social Engineering Security System Using Artificial Intelligence
Kyuner, A. P., & Chechulin, A. A. (2026) · International Russian Smart Industry Conference (SmartIndustryCon) · doi:10.1109/smartindustrycon68821.2026.11492839
Metadata
- Authors
- Sunkari, V., & Sri Nagesh, A.
- Affiliations
- Acharya Nagarjuna University (IN)
- Venue
- IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI)
- Published
- 2024-12-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 3786
- ISSN
- 2089-4872 (ISSN-L)
- 2252-8938
- OpenAlex
- W4403209755
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 0.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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 › Face recognition and analysis
- Keywords
- deepfake detection, deepfakes, capsule networks, political deepfakes, face forgery detection
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