CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 443Digital Media Forensic DetectionFace recognition and analysisGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

Recurrent convolutional strategies for face manipulation detection in videos

Open access
Sabir, Ekraam, Cheng, Jiaxin, Jaiswal, Ayush, AbdAlmageed, Wael, Masi, Iacopo, Natarajan, Prem·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1905.00582arXiv 1905.00582
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The spread of misinformation through synthetically generated yet realistic images and videos has become a significant problem, calling for robust manipulation detection methods. Despite the predominant effort of detecting face manipulation in still images, less attention has been paid to the identification of tampered faces in videos by taking advantage of the temporal information present in the stream. Recurrent convolutional models are a class of deep learning models which have proven effective at exploiting the temporal information from image streams across domains. We thereby distill the best strategy for combining variations in these models along with domain specific face preprocessing techniques through extensive experimentation to obtain state-of-the-art performance on publicly available video-based facial manipulation benchmarks. Specifically, we attempt to detect Deepfake, Face2Face and FaceSwap tampered faces in video streams. Evaluation is performed on the recently introduced FaceForensics++ dataset, improving the previous state-of-the-art by up to 4.55% in accuracy.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1905.00582

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Most previous deepfake detectors perform well within-dataset but struggle on cross-dataset scenarios where training and testing data distributions differ.

    “Deepfake detection faces a critical generalization hurdle, with performance deteriorating when there is a mismatch between the distributions of training and testing data.”

    From Transcending Forgery Specificity with Latent Space Augmentation for Generalizable Deepfake Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sabir, E., Cheng, J., Jaiswal, A., AbdAlmageed, W., Masi, I., & Natarajan, P.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Pages
80-87
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1905.00582
arXiv
1905.00582
OpenAlex
W2945262873
Cited by
443
References
7
Citations by year
2025: 45 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (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 › Face recognition and analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
face manipulation detection, video forensics, recurrent convolutional networks, deepfake detection, Face2Face, FaceForensics++, temporal information, misinformation, face preprocessing

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