CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 12Digital Media Forensic DetectionBiometric Identification and SecurityFace recognition and analysis

A Note on Deepfake Detection with Low-Resources

Open access
Kawa, Piotr, Syga, Piotr·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2006.05183arXiv 2006.05183
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Deepfakes are videos that include changes, quite often substituting face of a portrayed individual with a different face using neural networks. Even though the technology gained its popularity as a carrier of jokes and parodies it raises a serious threat to ones security - via biometric impersonation or besmearing. In this paper we present two methods that allow detecting Deepfakes for a user without significant computational power. In particular, we enhance MesoNet by replacing the original activation functions allowing a nearly 1% improvement as well as increasing the consistency of the results. Moreover, we introduced and verified a new activation function - Pish that at the cost of slight time overhead allows even higher consistency. Additionally, we present a preliminary results of Deepfake detection method based on Local Feature Descriptors (LFD), that allows setting up the system even faster and without resorting to GPU computation. Our method achieved Equal Error Rate of 0.28, with both accuracy and recall exceeding 0.7.

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.2006.05183

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Using MesoNet with the Pish and Mish activation functions showed a higher text accuracy than the other combinations.

    “Using MesoNet with the Pish and Mish activation functions showed a higher text accuracy than the other combinations.”

    From A Comprehensive Review of DeepFake Detection Using Advanced Machine Learning and Fusion Methods (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

    In Results (p. 5), Table 2 reports a test accuracy of 0.8689 for MesoNet with Pish + Mish, higher than three of the other four combinations. But Swish + Mish achieved the highest test accuracy, 0.8718, so Pish + Mish did not outperform all other combinations. The claim’s “text accuracy” appears to mean test accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The method by Kawa and Syga yielded an error rate of 0.28%, which is a comparatively shorter computation time.

    “This method yielded an error rate of 0.28%, which is a comparatively shorter computation time.”

    From A Comprehensive Review of DeepFake Detection Using Advanced Machine Learning and Fusion Methods (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Submitted Preprint (p. 1) reports an equal error rate of 0.28, not 0.28%; Table 4 in §8 (p. 7) gives 0.2836 for the best-performing descriptor. Section 8 (p. 7) reports shorter training time than MesoNet (3.5 versus 30 minutes), but longer inference time (0.076 versus 0.034 seconds). Thus the computation-time comparison holds for training, not inference. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Kawa and Syga (2020) presents a technique for detecting deepfakes that does not require high computational power; enhancing MesoNet by swapping default activation functions resulted in almost 1% improvement and increased decision consistency.

    “Kawa and Syga (2020) presents a technique for detecting deepfakes that does not require high computational power. Specifically, they enhanced MesoNet by swapping out the default activation functions, resulting in an almost 1% improvement and increased decision consistency.”

    From Deepfake video detection: challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as Kawa and Syga 2020

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. [3][3] Darius Afchar, Vincent Nozick, Junichi Yamagishi, and Isao Echizen. Mesonet: a compact facial video forgery detection network. CoRR , abs/1809.00888, 2018. - · arXiv
  2. [5][5] Herbert Bay, Tinne Tuytelaars, and Luc Van Gool. Surf: Speeded up robust features. In Aleˇ s Leonardis, Horst Bischof, and Axel Pinz, editors, Computer Vision - ECCV 2006 , pages 404-417, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. -
  3. [8][8] Xavier Glorot, Antoine Bordes, and Y. Bengio. Deep sparse rectifier neural networks. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statisitics (AISTATS) 2011 , 15:315-323, 01 2011. -
  4. [19][19] David Lowe. Distinctive image features from scaleinvariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision , 60:91-, 11 2004. -
  5. [21][21] Andrew L. Maas, Awni Y. Hannun, and Andrew Y. Ng. Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models. In in ICML Workshop on Deep Learning for Audio, Speech and Language Processing , 2013. -
  6. [26][26] E. Rublee, V. Rabaud, K. Konolige, and G. Bradski. Orb: Anefficient alternative to sift or surf. In 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 2564-2571, 2011. -
  7. [27][27] Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott E. Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. CoRR , abs/1409.4842, 2014. - · arXiv
  8. [30][30] Xin Yang, Yuezun Li, and Siwei Lyu. Exposing deep fakes using inconsistent head poses. CoRR , abs/1811.00661, 2018. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kawa, P., & Syga, P.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2006.05183
arXiv
2006.05183
OpenAlex
W3035501508
Cited by
10
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2022: 3
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 › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
deepfake detection, low-resource computing, mesonets, activation functions, local descriptors, face swapping, biometric spoofing

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