Cited by 81Digital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisMisinformation and Its Impacts

The face deepfake detection challenge

Open access
Guarnera, Luca, Giudice, Oliver, Guarnera, Francesco, Ortis, Alessandro, Puglisi, Giovanni, Paratore, Antonino, Bui, Linh M. Q., Fontani, Marco +12 more·2022·Journal of Imaging

Abstract

Multimedia data manipulation and forgery has never been easier than today, thanks to the power of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI-generated fake content, commonly called Deepfakes, have been raising new issues and concerns, but also new challenges for the research community. The Deepfake detection task has become widely addressed, but unfortunately, approaches in the literature suffer from generalization issues. In this paper, the Face Deepfake Detection and Reconstruction Challenge is described. Two different tasks were proposed to the participants: (i) creating a Deepfake detector capable of working in an “in the wild” scenario; (ii) creating a method capable of reconstructing original images from Deepfakes. Real images from CelebA and FFHQ and Deepfake images created by StarGAN, StarGAN-v2, StyleGAN, StyleGAN2, AttGAN and GDWCT were collected for the competition. The winning teams were chosen with respect to the highest classification accuracy value (Task I) and “minimum average distance to Manhattan” (Task II). Deep Learning algorithms, particularly those based on the EfficientNet architecture, achieved the best results in Task I. No winners were proclaimed for Task II. A detailed discussion of teams’ proposed methods with corresponding ranking is presented in this paper.

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 · 10.3390/jimaging8100263

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Metrics such as AUC and EER are essential for fully assessing a model's generalization across a wide range of techniques.

    “As emphasized in [15], metrics such as the area under the curve (AUC) and error-efficiency ratio (EER) are essential for fully assessing a model's generalization across a wide range of techniques.”

    From Beyond Accuracy: A Deployment-Oriented Benchmark of Deepfake Detection Models (2025) · cites this paper as [15]

    Section 4.1 reports an AUC for one detector, and Section 5 says Equal Error Rate (EER) was used to set another detector’s classification threshold. The paper does not say these metrics are essential for fully assessing generalization across techniques. It also expands EER as “Equal Error Rate,” not “error-efficiency ratio”; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Deepfake Challenge dataset combines authentic CelebA and FFHQ images with GAN-generated manipulations (StarGAN, AttGAN, StyleGAN) for attribute/face synthesis.

    “The Deepfake Challenge dataset [23] combines authentic CelebA and FFHQ images with GAN-generated manipulations (StarGAN, AttGAN, StyleGAN) for attribute/face synthesis.”

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: 8

  1. [1]Goodfellow I. Pouget-Abadie J. Mirza M. Xu B. Warde-Farley D. Ozair S. Courville A. Bengio Y. Generative Adversarial Nets Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Montreal, QC, Canada 8–13 December 2014 2672 2680
  2. [19]Korshunov P. Marcel S. Deepfakes: A New Threat to Face Recognition? Assessment and Detection arXiv 2018 1812.08685
  3. [24]Dolhansky B. Bitton J. Pflaum B. Lu J. Howes R. Wang M. Ferrer C.C. The Deepfake Detection Challenge (DFDC) Dataset arXiv 2020 2006.07397
  4. [32]Wodajo D. Atnafu S. Deepfake Video Detection Using Convolutional Vision Transformer arXiv 2021 2102.11126
  5. [33]Heo Y.J. Choi Y.J. Lee Y.W. Kim B.G. Deepfake Detection Scheme Based on Vision Transformer and Distillation arXiv 2021 2104.01353
  6. [49]Tan M. Le Q. Efficientnet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR Long Beach, CA, USA 17–23 July 2019 6105 6114
  7. [54]Tan M. Le Q.V. EfficientNetV2: Smaller Models and Faster Training arXiv 2021 abs/2104.00298 · arXiv
  8. [58]Liu L. Jiang H. He P. Chen W. Liu X. Gao J. Han J. On the variance of the adaptive learning rate and beyond arXiv 2019 1908.03265

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guarnera, L., Giudice, O., Guarnera, F., Ortis, A., Puglisi, G., Paratore, A., Bui, L. M. Q., Fontani, M., Coccomini, D. A., Caldelli, R., Falchi, F., Gennaro, C., Messina, N., Amato, G., Perelli, G., Concas, S., Cuccu, C., Orrù, G., Marcialis, G. L., & Battiato, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Catania (IT)
  • Bank of Italy (IT)
  • University of Cagliari (IT)
  • iCTLab s.r.l., 95125 Catania, Italy
  • Amped Software, 34149 Trieste, Italy
  • Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "Alessandro Faedo" (IT)
  • Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Telecomunicazioni (IT)
Corresponding author
Guarnera, Luca
Venue
Journal of Imaging
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-09-28
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
263
ISSN
2313-433X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4297477523
Cited by
79
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ISTI Open Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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, DFDC, EfficientNet, CelebA, FFHQ, StarGAN, StyleGAN

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