PreprintCited by 5Digital Media Forensic DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Deepfake-Eval-2024: A Multi-Modal In-the-Wild Benchmark of Deepfakes Circulated in 2024

Open access
Chandra, Nuria Alina, Lee, Hannah, Murtfeldt, Ryan, Qiu, Lin, Karmakar, Arnab, Tanumihardja, Emmanuel, Farhat, Kevin, Caffee, Ben, Lee, Changyeon, Choi, Jongwook, Paik, Sejin, Kim, Aerin, Etzioni, Oren·2025·arXiv

Abstract

In the age of increasingly realistic generative AI, robust deepfake detection is essential for mitigating fraud and disinformation. While many deepfake detectors report high accuracy on academic datasets, we show that these academic benchmarks are out of date and not representative of real-world deepfakes. We introduce Deepfake-Eval-2024, a new deepfake detection benchmark consisting of in-the-wild deepfakes collected from social media and deepfake detection platform users in 2024. Deepfake-Eval-2024 consists of 45 hours of videos, 56.5 hours of audio, and 1,975 images, encompassing the latest manipulation technologies. The benchmark contains diverse media content from 88 different websites in 52 different languages. We find that the performance of open-source state-of-the-art deepfake detection models drops precipitously when evaluated on Deepfake-Eval-2024, with AUC decreasing by 50% for video, 48% for audio, and 45% for image models compared to previous benchmarks. We also evaluate commercial deepfake detection models and models finetuned on Deepfake-Eval-2024, and find that they have superior performance to off-the-shelf open-source models, but do not yet reach the accuracy of deepfake forensic analysts. The dataset is available at https://github.com/nuriachandra/Deepfake-Eval-2024.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.02857

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Deepfake-Eval-2024 highlights how sharply detector performance can degrade on current in-the-wild content.

    “Deepfake-Eval-2024 highlights how sharply detector performance can degrade on current in-the-wild content [44].”

    From A Review of Tools and Technologies to Combat Deepfakes (2026) · cites this paper as [44]

  • DeepFake-Eval-2024 provides in-the-wild deepfakes collected from social media and various deepfake detection platforms, becoming a challenging testbed for deepfake detection tools.

    “DeepFake-Eval-2024 [40] addresses this limitation by providing inthe-wild deepfakes collected from social media and various deepfake detection platforms, thereby becoming a challenging testbed for deepfake detection tools.”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chandra, N. A., Lee, H., Murtfeldt, R., Qiu, L., Karmakar, A., Tanumihardja, E., Farhat, K., Caffee, B., Lee, C., Choi, J., Paik, S., Kim, A., & Etzioni, O.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416111016
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
deepfake detection, benchmark dataset, social media, disinformation, video manipulation, sound manipulation, image editing, forensic analysis, model evaluation

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