PreprintCited by 3Digital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisMisinformation and Its Impacts

How Generalizable are Deepfake Image Detectors? An Empirical Study

Open access
Li, Boquan, Sun, Jun, Poskitt, Christopher M., Wang, Xingmei·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Deepfakes are becoming increasingly credible, posing a significant threat given their potential to facilitate fraud or bypass access control systems. This has motivated the development of deepfake detection methods, in which deep learning models are trained to distinguish between real and synthesized footage. Unfortunately, existing detectors struggle to generalize to deepfakes from datasets they were not trained on, but little work has been done to examine why or how this limitation can be addressed. Especially, those single-modality deepfake images reveal little available forgery evidence, posing greater challenges than detecting deepfake videos. In this work, we present the first empirical study on the generalizability of deepfake detectors, an essential goal for detectors to stay one step ahead of attackers. Our study utilizes six deepfake datasets, five deepfake image detection methods, and two model augmentation approaches, confirming that detectors do not generalize in zero-shot settings. Additionally, we find that detectors are learning unwanted properties specific to synthesis methods and struggling to extract discriminative features, limiting their ability to generalize. Finally, we find that there are neurons universally contributing to detection across seen and unseen datasets, suggesting a possible path towards zero-shot generalizability.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2308.04177

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, B., Sun, J., Poskitt, C. M., & Wang, X.
Affiliations
  • Harbin Engineering University (CN)
  • Singapore Management University (SG)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385895956
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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 › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
deepfake detection, generalizability, zero-shot generalization, model augmentation, synthetic image detection, discriminative features, transfer learning

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