The DOI matches its DataCite record, with a small difference in title or year; the references it cites are not checked yet.
DDL: A Large-Scale Dataset for Deepfake Detection and Localization in Diversified Real-World Scenarios
Open accessAbstract
Recent advances in AIGC have exacerbated the misuse of malicious deepfake content, making the development of reliable deepfake detection methods an essential means to address this challenge. Although existing deepfake detection models demonstrate outstanding performance in detection metrics, most methods only provide simple binary classification results, lacking interpretability. Recent studies have attempted to enhance the interpretability of classification results by providing spatial manipulation masks or temporal forgery segments. However, due to the limitations of forgery datasets, the practical effectiveness of these methods remains suboptimal. The primary reason lies in the fact that most existing deepfake datasets contain only binary labels, with limited variety in forgery scenarios, insufficient diversity in deepfake types, and relatively small data scales, making them inadequate for complex real-world scenarios. To address this predicament, we construct a novel large-scale deepfake detection and localization (DDL) dataset containing 1.4M+ forged samples and encompassing 80 distinct deepfake methods. The DDL design incorporates four key innovations: (1) Comprehensive Deepfake Methods (covering 7 different generation architectures and a total of 80 methods), (2) Varied Manipulation Modes (incorporating 7 classic and 3 novel forgery modes), (3) Diverse Forgery Scenarios and Modalities (including 3 scenarios and 3 modalities), and (4) Fine-grained Forgery Annotations (providing 1.18M+ precise spatial masks and 0.23M+ precise temporal segments). Through these improvements, our DDL not only provides a more challenging benchmark for complex real-world forgeries but also offers crucial support for building next-generation deepfake detection, localization, and interpretability methods.
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?
Recent datasets such as DDL and ExDDV are explicitly designed with explainability in mind, combining binary labels, pixel-level masks, and human-generated textual descriptions.
“Recent datasets such as DDL [51] and ExDDV [52] are explicitly designed with explainability in mind, combining binary labels, pixel-level masks, and human-generated textual descriptions.”
From From Black Boxes to Glass Boxes: Explainable AI for Trustworthy Deepfake Forensics (2025) · cites this paper as [51]
Metadata
- Authors
- Miao, C., Zhang, Y., Gao, W., Tan, Z., Feng, W., Luo, M., Li, J., Liu, A., Diao, Y., Chu, Q., Gong, T., Li, Z., Yao, W., & Zhou, J. T.
- Affiliations
- Ant Group (China) (CN)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Hefei University of Technology (CN)
- Agency for Science, Technology and Research (SG)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.23292
- OpenAlex
- W6910661408
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- Ant Group
- National Research Foundation Singapore (AISG3-RP-2024-033)
- 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, deepfake datasets, large-scale benchmark, interpretability, fine-grained annotation
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