Pith. sign in

REVIEW

How Close are Other Computer Vision Tasks to 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 2310.00922 v1 pith:KGNKN5CC submitted 2023-10-02 cs.CV

How Close are Other Computer Vision Tasks to Deepfake Detection?

classification cs.CV
keywords modelsdeepfakedetectionothercomputereffectivemethodsmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this paper, we challenge the conventional belief that supervised ImageNet-trained models have strong generalizability and are suitable for use as feature extractors in deepfake detection. We present a new measurement, "model separability," for visually and quantitatively assessing a model's raw capacity to separate data in an unsupervised manner. We also present a systematic benchmark for determining the correlation between deepfake detection and other computer vision tasks using pre-trained models. Our analysis shows that pre-trained face recognition models are more closely related to deepfake detection than other models. Additionally, models trained using self-supervised methods are more effective in separation than those trained using supervised methods. After fine-tuning all models on a small deepfake dataset, we found that self-supervised models deliver the best results, but there is a risk of overfitting. Our results provide valuable insights that should help researchers and practitioners develop more effective deepfake detection models.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.