Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Towards Benchmarking and Evaluating Deepfake Detection

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2203.02115 v2 pith:TSRXDFYN submitted 2022-03-04 cs.CV cs.AI

classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords detectionapproachesevaluationbeendeepfakeexistingmanipulatedresults
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Deepfake detection automatically recognizes the manipulated medias through the analysis of the difference between manipulated and non-altered videos. It is natural to ask which are the top performers among the existing deepfake detection approaches to identify promising research directions and provide practical guidance. Unfortunately, it's difficult to conduct a sound benchmarking comparison of existing detection approaches using the results in the literature because evaluation conditions are inconsistent across studies. Our objective is to establish a comprehensive and consistent benchmark, to develop a repeatable evaluation procedure, and to measure the performance of a range of detection approaches so that the results can be compared soundly. A challenging dataset consisting of the manipulated samples generated by more than 13 different methods has been collected, and 11 popular detection approaches (9 algorithms) from the existing literature have been implemented and evaluated with 6 fair-minded and practical evaluation metrics. Finally, 92 models have been trained and 644 experiments have been performed for the evaluation. The results along with the shared data and evaluation methodology constitute a benchmark for comparing deepfake detection approaches and measuring progress.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools