The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Deepfake Detection for Facial Images with Facemasks
Open accessAbstract
Hyper-realistic face image generation and manipulation have givenrise to numerous unethical social issues, e.g., invasion of privacy,threat of security, and malicious political maneuvering, which re-sulted in the development of recent deepfake detection methods with the rising demands of deepfake forensics. Proposed deepfake detection methods to date have shown remarkable detection performance and robustness. However, none of the suggested deepfake detection methods assessed the performance of deepfakes with the facemask during the pandemic crisis after the outbreak of theCovid-19. In this paper, we thoroughly evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art deepfake detection models on the deepfakes with the facemask. Also, we propose two approaches to enhance the masked deepfakes detection: face-patch and face-crop. The experimental evaluations on both methods are assessed through the base-line deepfake detection models on the various deepfake datasets. Our extensive experiments show that, among the two methods, face-crop performs better than the face-patch, and could be a train method for deepfake detection models to detect fake faces with facemask in real world.
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?
Face occlusion significantly reduces detection accuracy.
“during the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers [43] introduced a masked deepfake dataset, revealing that face occlusion significantly reduces detection accuracy, highlighting the importance of robustness testing in practical conditions.”
From Evolving from Single-modal to Multi-modal Facial Deepfake Detection: Progress and Challenges (2024) · cites this paper as [43]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evolving from Single-modal to Multi-modal Facial Deepfake Detection: Progress and Challenges
Liu, P., Tao, Q., & Zhou, J. T. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.06965 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Ko, D., Lee, S., Park, J., Shin, S., Hong, D., & Woo, S. S.
- Affiliations
- Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- Pages
- 27-30
- arXiv
- 2202.11359
- OpenAlex
- W4281397290
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6
- FWCI
- 0.80
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- deepfake detection, face masks, face image manipulation, deepfake forensics, COVID-19 pandemic, privacy risks, security threats
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