CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 12Digital Media Forensic DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsBiometric Identification and Security

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Robustness and Generalizability of Deepfake Detection: A Study with Diffusion Models

Open access
Song, Haixu, Huang, Shiyu, Dong, Yinpeng, Tu, Wei-Wei·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2309.02218arXiv 2309.02218
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The rise of deepfake images, especially of well-known personalities, poses a serious threat to the dissemination of authentic information. To tackle this, we present a thorough investigation into how deepfakes are produced and how they can be identified. The cornerstone of our research is a rich collection of artificial celebrity faces, titled DeepFakeFace (DFF). We crafted the DFF dataset using advanced diffusion models and have shared it with the community through online platforms. This data serves as a robust foundation to train and test algorithms designed to spot deepfakes. We carried out a thorough review of the DFF dataset and suggest two evaluation methods to gauge the strength and adaptability of deepfake recognition tools. The first method tests whether an algorithm trained on one type of fake images can recognize those produced by other methods. The second evaluates the algorithm's performance with imperfect images, like those that are blurry, of low quality, or compressed. Given varied results across deepfake methods and image changes, our findings stress the need for better deepfake detectors. Our DFF dataset and tests aim to boost the development of more effective tools against deepfakes.

Overview

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.2309.02218

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and Léon Bottou. Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 214-223. PMLR, 2017.
  2. Junyi Cao, Chao Ma, Taiping Yao, Shen Chen, Shouhong Ding, and Xiaokang Yang. End- to-end reconstruction-classification learning for face forgery detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4113-4122, 2022.
  3. Davide Cozzolino, Andreas Rössler, Justus Thies, Matthias Nießner, and Luisa Verdoliva. Id- reveal: Identity-aware deepfake video detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15108-15117, 2021.
  4. Hao Dang, Feng Liu, Joel Stehouwer, Xiaoming Liu, and Anil K Jain. On the detection of digital face manipulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern recognition, pages 5781-5790, 2020.
  5. Jiankang Deng, Jia Guo, Evangelos Ververas, Irene Kotsia, and Stefanos Zafeiriou. Retinaface: Single-shot multi-level face localisation in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5203-5212, 2020.
  6. Brian Dolhansky, Joanna Bitton, Ben Pflaum, Jikuo Lu, Russ Howes, Menglin Wang, and Cristian Canton Ferrer. The deepfake detection challenge (dfdc) dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07397, 2020. · arXiv
  7. Xiaoyi Dong, Jianmin Bao, Dongdong Chen, Ting Zhang, Weiming Zhang, Nenghai Yu, Dong Chen, Fang Wen, and Baining Guo. Protecting celebrities from deepfake with identity consistency transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9468-9478, 2022.
  8. Apurva Gandhi and Shomik Jain. Adversarial perturbations fool deepfake detectors. In 2020 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), pages 1-8. IEEE, 2020.
  9. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM, 63(11):139-144, 2020.
  10. Alexandros Haliassos, Konstantinos Vougioukas, Stavros Petridis, and Maja Pantic. Lips don't lie: A generalisable and robust approach to face forgery detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5039-5049, 2021.
  11. Yinan He, Bei Gan, Siyu Chen, Yichun Zhou, Guojun Yin, Luchuan Song, Lu Sheng, Jing Shao, and Ziwei Liu. Forgerynet: A versatile benchmark for comprehensive forgery analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4360-4369, 2021.
  12. Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840-6851, 2020.
  13. Liming Jiang, Ren Li, Wayne Wu, Chen Qian, and Chen Change Loy. Deeperforensics-1.0: A large-scale dataset for real-world face forgery detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2889-2898, 2020.
  14. Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4401-4410, 2019.
  15. Jiaming Li, Hongtao Xie, Jiahong Li, Zhongyuan Wang, and Yongdong Zhang. Frequency- aware discriminative feature learning supervised by single-center loss for face forgery detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6458-6467, 2021.
  16. Lingzhi Li, Jianmin Bao, Ting Zhang, Hao Yang, Dong Chen, Fang Wen, and Baining Guo. Face x-ray for more general face forgery detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5001-5010, 2020.
  17. Yuezun Li, Xin Yang, Pu Sun, Honggang Qi, and Siwei Lyu. Celeb-df: A large-scale challenging dataset for deepfake forensics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3207-3216, 2020.
  18. Honggu Liu, Xiaodan Li, Wenbo Zhou, Yuefeng Chen, Yuan He, Hui Xue, Weiming Zhang, and Nenghai Yu. Spatial-phase shallow learning: rethinking face forgery detection in frequency domain. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 772-781, 2021.
  19. Yuchen Luo, Yong Zhang, Junchi Yan, and Wei Liu. Generalizing face forgery detection with high-frequency features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16317-16326, 2021.
  20. Iacopo Masi, Aditya Killekar, Royston Marian Mascarenhas, Shenoy Pratik Gurudatt, and Wael AbdAlmageed. Two-branch recurrent network for isolating deepfakes in videos. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VII 16, pages 667-684. Springer, 2020.
  21. Yuyang Qian, Guojun Yin, Lu Sheng, Zixuan Chen, and Jing Shao. Thinking in frequency: Face forgery detection by mining frequency-aware clues. In European conference on computer vision, pages 86-103. Springer, 2020.
  22. Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684-10695, 2022.
  23. Andreas Rossler, Davide Cozzolino, Luisa Verdoliva, Christian Riess, Justus Thies, and Matthias Nießner. Faceforensics++: Learning to detect manipulated facial images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 1-11, 2019.
  24. Rasmus Rothe, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Dex: Deep expectation of apparent age from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision workshops, pages 10-15, 2015.
  25. Kaede Shiohara and Toshihiko Yamasaki. Detecting deepfakes with self-blended images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18720-18729, 2022.
  26. Zekun Sun, Yujie Han, Zeyu Hua, Na Ruan, and Weijia Jia. Improving the efficiency and robustness of deepfakes detection through precise geometric features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3609-3618, 2021.
  27. Run Wang, Felix Juefei-Xu, Lei Ma, Xiaofei Xie, Yihao Huang, Jian Wang, and Yang Liu. Fakespotter: A simple yet robust baseline for spotting ai-synthesized fake faces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06122, 2019. · arXiv
  28. Xin Yang, Yuezun Li, and Siwei Lyu. Exposing deep fakes using inconsistent head poses. In ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 8261-8265. IEEE, 2019.
  29. Hanqing Zhao, Wenbo Zhou, Dongdong Chen, Tianyi Wei, Weiming Zhang, and Nenghai Yu. Multi-attentional deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2185-2194, 2021.
  30. Yinglin Zheng, Jianmin Bao, Dong Chen, Ming Zeng, and Fang Wen. Exploring temporal coherence for more general video face forgery detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 15044-15054, 2021.
  31. Yipin Zhou and Ser-Nam Lim. Joint audio-visual deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 14800-14809, 2021.
  32. Mingjian Zhu, Hanting Chen, Qiangyu Yan, Xudong Huang, Guanyu Lin, Wei Li, Zhijun Tu, Hailin Hu, Jie Hu, and Yunhe Wang. Genimage: A million-scale benchmark for detecting ai-generated image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08571, 2023. · arXiv
  33. Xiangyu Zhu, Hao Wang, Hongyan Fei, Zhen Lei, and Stan Z Li. Face forgery detection by 3d decomposition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2929-2939, 2021.
  34. Bojia Zi, Minghao Chang, Jingjing Chen, Xingjun Ma, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Wilddeepfake: A challenging real-world dataset for deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on multimedia, pages 2382-2390, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 12

Metadata

Authors
Song, H., Huang, S., Dong, Y., & Tu, W.-W.
Affiliations
Tsinghua University (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2309.02218
arXiv
2309.02218
OpenAlex
W4386557734
Cited by
12
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
Keywords
deepfake detection, diffusion models, robustness, generalizability, low-quality images, evaluation metrics, synthetic image dataset

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