PreprintCited by 794Digital Media Forensic DetectionFace recognition and analysisBiometric Identification and Security

DeepFakes: a New Threat to Face Recognition? Assessment and Detection

Open access
Korshunov, Pavel, Marcel, Sebastien·2018·arXiv

Abstract

It is becoming increasingly easy to automatically replace a face of one person in a video with the face of another person by using a pre-trained generative adversarial network (GAN). Recent public scandals, e.g., the faces of celebrities being swapped onto pornographic videos, call for automated ways to detect these Deepfake videos. To help developing such methods, in this paper, we present the first publicly available set of Deepfake videos generated from videos of VidTIMIT database. We used open source software based on GANs to create the Deepfakes, and we emphasize that training and blending parameters can significantly impact the quality of the resulted videos. To demonstrate this impact, we generated videos with low and high visual quality (320 videos each) using differently tuned parameter sets. We showed that the state of the art face recognition systems based on VGG and Facenet neural networks are vulnerable to Deepfake videos, with 85.62% and 95.00% false acceptance rates respectively, which means methods for detecting Deepfake videos are necessary. By considering several baseline approaches, we found that audio-visual approach based on lip-sync inconsistency detection was not able to distinguish Deepfake videos. The best performing method, which is based on visual quality metrics and is often used in presentation attack detection domain, resulted in 8.97% equal error rate on high quality Deepfakes. Our experiments demonstrate that GAN-generated Deepfake videos are challenging for both face recognition systems and existing detection methods, and the further development of face swapping technology will make it even more so.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1812.08685

Cites

23 of 23 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-TIMIT consists of 620 DeepFake videos of 32 subjects; each subject has 20 DeepFake videos, 10 of size 64×64 and 10 of size 128×128.

    “The DeepFake-TIMIT dataset (Korshunov and Marcel 2018) consists of 620 DeepFake videos of 32 subjects. In DeepFake-TIMIT, each subject has 20 DeepFake videos. 10 videos are of size 64 × 64 while the other 10 videos are of size 128 × 128.”

    From Countering Malicious DeepFakes: Survey, Battleground, and Horizon (2022) · cites this paper as Korshunov and Marcel 2018

    The Introduction (p. 1) identifies 32 subjects, 10 source videos per subject, and two generated versions, and it reports a total of 620 DeepFake videos. But it also says there are 320 videos per version, which does not reconcile with 620 overall. The DeepFake Database section (p. 2) specifies that 64 × 64 and 128 × 128 are model input/output image sizes for facial regions, not the sizes of the videos. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The DF-TIMIT dataset is divided into two subsets: a low-quality set with 320 videos of size 64 × 64 dimensions and a high-quality set with a 128 × 128 frame size.

    “A low-quality (LQ) set has 320 videos of size 64 × 64 dimensions and a high-quality (HQ) set with a 128 × 128 frame size.”

    From Attention-based Multimodal learning framework for Generalized Audio-Visual Deepfake Detection (2023) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says 320 videos were generated for each quality version and identifies 64 × 64 LQ and 128 × 128 HQ models. The Deepfake Database section (p. 2) specifies that these dimensions describe the models’ input/output facial regions, not the size of the full video frames. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Visual modality datasets dominate with over 20 publicly available resources, while audio modality datasets are fewer, with 11 notable datasets.

    “Visual modality datasets dominate with over 20 publicly available resources [29, 30, 30-44], while audio modality datasets are fewer, with 11 notable datasets [45-55].”
  • VCF surpasses specialized datasets like DeepfakeTIMIT in scale while introducing four resolution tiers (1080p, 540p, 360p, 270p) and three compression levels (raw, c23, c40).

    “With 1,920 authentic and 7,680 synthetic videos, VCF surpasses specialized datasets like DeepfakeTIMIT (Korshunov and Marcel, 2018) in scale while introducing four resolution tiers (1080p, 540p, 360p and 270p) and three compression levels (raw, c23 and c40) - features absent in most benchmarks.”
  • The Deepfake TIMIT dataset contains videos with various visual artefacts and modifications, making it appropriate for testing deepfake detection algorithms.

    “The dataset contains videos with various visual artefacts and modifications, making it appropriate for testing deepfake detection algorithms (Korshunov and Marcel 2018).”

    From Deepfake video detection: challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as Korshunov and Marcel 2018

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

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [12][12] J. Galbally and S. Marcel, 'Face anti-spoofing based on general image quality assessment,' in 2014 22nd International Conference on Pattern Recognition , Aug 2014, pp. 1173-1178. -
  2. [25][25] J. S. Chung, A. W. Senior, O. Vinyals, and A. Zisserman, 'Lip reading sentences in the wild,' CoRR , vol. abs/1611.05358, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05358 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Korshunov, P., & Marcel, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904573504
Cited by
497
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • 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 › Face recognition and analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
Keywords
deepfakes, face swapping, deepfake detection, generative adversarial networks, visual quality metrics, anti-spoofing, false acceptance rate, FaceNet, VGG

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