Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 124 references

StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection via Fine-Grained Steganographic Domain Lifting

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read StegaFFD proposes that face forgery detection can and should run directly on steganographic images—faces hidden inside innocuous natural photos—so that privacy protection no longer alerts attackers or degrades detection.

desk verdict StegaFFD has a real new idea—FFD directly on stego images—and its accuracy core holds up, but the 'without raising suspicion' claim is untested and the paper would need a hard privacy evaluation to support it. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.02886 v1 pith:PXCQQBHX submitted 2026-03-03 cs.CV cs.AI

Guoqing Ma , Xun Lin , Hui Ma , Ajian Liu , Yizhong Liu , Wenzhong Tang , Shan Yu , Chenqi Kong
show 1 more author
Yi Yu
This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords steganographyimagehidingfaceforgerydetectionprivacyprotectiondifferentialattentionfrequency-awaredecompositiondomainalignmentcovertanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the usual ways of protecting facial privacy during deepfake detection—anonymization, encryption, distortion—are self-defeating because they make protected images look protected, alerting attackers and destroying the subtle forgery traces detectors rely on. The proposed alternative, StegaFFD, hides the face inside an ordinary natural cover image and runs the forgery detector directly on the resulting stego image, without ever extracting or decrypting the face on the server. The authors claim that with low-frequency-aware decomposition to estimate and subtract cover semantics, differential attention to cancel cover noise, and a training-time alignment loss against raw-face features, StegaFFD achieves the best accuracy among privacy-preserving FFD methods and comes within roughly 2% average AUC of detection on unprotected faces. If true, this would make covert, suspicion-free facial analysis practical in client-server settings.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the steganographic feature lifting network M_L, composed of Low-Frequency-Aware Decomposition (LFAD) and Spatial-Frequency Differential Attention (SFDA). LFAD predicts spatially variant low-pass filters to estimate the cover's low-frequency content; SFDA computes attention as the difference between two softmax attention maps, plus a discrete wavelet transform frequency-differential term, so that common-mode cover information cancels out and the secret facial signal survives. Steganographic Domain Alignment (SDA), used only in training, pulls stego features toward features of the raw face via a CORAL-MMD distance and attention alignment; low-rank decomposition keeps t

What would settle it

Train a binary classifier to distinguish StegaFFD stego images from their covers; if it exceeds chance accuracy on held-out pairs, the 'imperceptible/covert' claim fails. Alternatively, evaluate StegaFFD on covers with dense high-frequency content (e.g., foliage, crowds) and check whether AUC on a fixed forgery test set falls toward or below the unprotected-baseline gap; the paper's frequency-separation premise predicts a sharp degradation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: the hidden forgery-specific facial features, though much fainter than cover content, can be lifted directly from the stego image by suppressing the cover's low-frequency semantic information and enhancing the higher-frequency bands where steganographic secrets reside. The key evidence is that StegaFFD's features focus on facial forgery regions (eyes, nose, mouth) while remaining insensitive to the cover's content, and that it outperforms twenty combinations of four privacy methods and four FFD detectors across seven datasets, with an average AUC of 72.00 versus 73.96 for the unprotected Xception baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes cover semantics live in low frequencies and hidden face information lives in higher frequencies; when the cover image contains dense objects or rich high-frequency textures, that separation breaks down and the hidden face signal is drowned out—a limitation the paper's own failure cases confirm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Server-side detection never needs to extract or decrypt the hidden face, so the transmitted image contains no facial content an attacker can grab.
  • Steganographic covers look like ordinary photos (PSNR 32.46 dB, SSIM 0.86 to the cover), so interception does not reveal that privacy protection is even in use.
  • FFD accuracy under StegaFFD trails unprotected detection by only about 2% average AUC, far smaller than the 7–20% drops seen with anonymization and prior steganography-based pairs.
  • Because the alignment branch is dropped at deployment, the added privacy costs nothing at inference time beyond the cover-hiding step.
  • Choosing covers with little high-frequency texture avoids the documented failure mode of dense-object covers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same hide-then-analyze recipe could generalize to other integrity checks on sensitive imagery—e.g., detecting manipulated medical scans or ID documents—where visible protection would itself be undesirable.
  • A natural stress test the paper leaves open is steganalysis: whether a learned classifier can distinguish x_stego from x_cover, or recover the embedded face; the imperceptibility numbers suggest it would be hard, but the paper does not attempt this attack.
  • Cover selection could be turned into an explicit optimization: pick covers whose high-frequency energy is low at embedding time, directly operationalizing the paper's failure-case advice.
  • The training-only alignment amounts to a distillation from a clean-domain detector into a stego-domain detector; pushing that distillation further (or using a stronger raw-domain teacher) could close the remaining 2% gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. StegaFFD proposes a client-server face forgery detection (FFD) framework in which the client hides a face image inside a natural cover image with a deep image hiding network, and the server classifies the stego image directly, without extraction or decryption. The paper introduces three components: LFAD, which estimates spatially varying low-pass cover features; SFDA, a differential-attention module with wavelet sub-band attention intended to suppress cover semantics; and SDA, a training-time distillation loss that aligns stego-domain features with features extracted from the raw face. The method is trained on FaceForensics++ and evaluated on seven other forgery datasets, comparing against combinations of four deep-image-hiding methods / one anonymization method and four FFD detectors. The authors report higher AUC than the tested baselines, as well as PSNR/SSIM between cover and stego images, and claim that the approach avoids raising attackers' suspicion.

Significance. If the claims hold, this would be a useful contribution to privacy-preserving facial forensics: the problem is real, and the idea of performing FFD directly in the steganographic domain is novel and plausible. The architecture is coherent, and the ablations in Tables 4-6 give some support to the contribution of each component. The cross-domain accuracy advantage over the tested DIH+FFD baselines in Table 2 is substantial on average. The training-time SDA distillation is not circular: raw-face features are used only as a training target, not as test-time input. However, the central privacy claim that StegaFFD 'avoids raising suspicion' is supported only by low-level similarity metrics and is not tested against steganalysis, human perception, or an adversarial threat model; the paper's own conclusion also concedes visible artifacts. The lack of error bars, significance tests, and code further weakens the reliability of the empirical claims. The failure-case discussion is honest and should be preserved, but it currently circumscribes the main claim more than the abstract admits.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 3; Abstract; Conclusion] The claim that StegaFFD 'avoids raising attackers' suspicion' is not empirically supported. The only evidence is PSNR=32.46 dB and SSIM=0.86 between x_cover and x_stego in Table 3, with no comparison against the DIH baselines in Table 2 and no steganalysis detector or human perceptual study. PSNR < 35 dB is low by current deep-steganography standards, and the Conclusion itself concedes 'slight visual artifacts in stego images.' Since the threat model in Sec. 1 relies on the attacker seeing only a normal cover, this omission concerns the paper's central contribution. Please report steganalysis detection rates and/or a perceptual study, or explicitly narrow the covertness claim.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2] All accuracy numbers are single-run AUC percentages with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Some comparisons that support the 'best' claim are close (e.g., CDFv2 72.43 vs 72.41 in Table 2; UADFV 73.63 vs 75.49 for HiNet in Table 7). Without repeated runs or paired tests, the ordering among top methods may not be stable. Please provide mean±std over at least three training runs and significance tests for the main comparison and for the ablations in Tables 4-6.
  3. [§3.3, Eqs. (15)-(16)] LoD is described as separating an 'orthogonal semantic subspace' from a 'forgery-specific subspace,' but the update rule as written does not enforce this. If ΔW is an arbitrary learnable matrix, then W = W_r + ΔW can change in the row/column space of the frozen W_r. To preserve the claimed separation, ΔW must be parameterized as U_{n-r} B V_{n-r}^T (or otherwise constrained). As written, the improvement in Table 6 cannot be attributed uniquely to subspace separation. Please clarify the parameterization or add the missing constraint.
  4. [§3.2 and §4.2 Failure Cases] The frequency-separation assumption behind LFAD/SFDA is stated in Sec. 3.2 (cover semantics in low frequencies, hidden information in high frequencies), and the failure cases in Sec. 4.2 concede that dense-object covers generate high-frequency content that interferes with detection. This is not a peripheral issue: it delimits what counts as a usable 'natural cover.' The paper should quantify the failure boundary (e.g., accuracy stratified by cover frequency energy or object density) and state a selection criterion; otherwise, the general claim that StegaFFD works with natural cover images is too broad.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§4.1] The phrase 'average value of the top-3 metrics' is unclear; it should specify whether this is the average AUC over the top-3 datasets or a top-3 metric.
  2. [Algorithm 1, Eq. (19)] Stage 1 uses M'_D(f_stego) while Stage 3 uses M'_D(f_secret); Eq. (19) should disambiguate which prediction is y'.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (10)] The text says the decoder consists of differential attention followed by a feed-forward network, but no FFN is specified. Add the module or remove the claim.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (9)] (1-λ_init) is called a fixed scaling factor, but λ_init is a hyperparameter; clarify that it is fixed after initialization.
  5. [Table 3] Specify the size and composition of the test set used for the similarity metrics, and report per-method PSNR/SSIM for the DIH baselines in Table 2.
  6. [Fig. 4, Ref. [124]] The text mentions Grad-CAM++ but the cited reference is the original Grad-CAM paper; update the citation if the implementation is actually Grad-CAM++.
  7. [Overall] No code or trained models are released. Given the number of free hyperparameters (λ_init, λ_d, γ, γ_s, LoD rank), a public release would materially aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: StegaFFD's test-time prediction is externally evaluated, and SDA is a training-only auxiliary signal, not a fitted input reused as a result.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: x_stego = H(x_secret, x_cover) at the client, then y_hat = M_D(SFDA(LFAD(x_stego))) on the server (Eqs. 1-10, Sec. 3.2). The reported FFD accuracies are obtained on external benchmark test sets (Table 2), so no reported number is an algebraic consequence of the loss definitions. The SDA branch computes f_secret = M'_L(x_secret) (Eq. 11) but is explicitly 'only involved during the training phase' (Sec. 3.3) and is omitted during deployment (Algorithm 1); the alignment loss L_SDA (Eq. 18) is a regularizer that distills raw-face features into the stego-domain feature lifting network, analogous to standard knowledge distillation, and does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. The frequency-separation premise ('most semantic information of the cover is concentrated in the low-frequency band') is cited to external works HiNet [44] and PIRNet [47] in addition to the authors' HideMIA [46], and is empirically corroborated by the 'Direct LFAD' ablation in Table 4. The only notable self-reference is HideMIA, which motivates the stego-domain analysis idea, but it is not the sole support for any load-bearing premise and is not a machine-checked theorem being invoked to forbid alternatives. The imperceptibility claim (PSNR=32.46 dB) is an experimental measurement, not a derivation; concerns about its adequacy as evidence for 'avoiding suspicion' are validity/robustness issues, not circularity. Overall, the derivation is self-contained: no result reduces by construction to its own inputs, and the training-time raw-face features are not used at inference.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method depends on hand-set hyperparameters (lambda_init, lambda_d, gamma, gamma_s, LoD residual rank) and on two untested domain assumptions: low-frequency cover semantics vs high-frequency hidden secrets, and the imperceptibility of the stego image to attackers. No physical or independent new entities are introduced; the modules LFAD, SFDA, and SDA are concrete network components, not postulated quantities.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda_init = 0.8
    Initial scalar controlling the differential attention subtraction in Eq. (8); hand-set and clamped to [0,1].
  • lambda_d = 2
    Residual scaling factor in Eq. (10), chosen empirically as a fixed hyperparameter.
  • gamma (SDA distance) = 10
    Exponential coefficient in the SDA distance of Eq. (13); hand-set fixed hyperparameter.
  • gamma_s (loss schedule) = 10
    Controls the ramp of the alignment weight mu from 0 to 1 in Eq. (21); hand-set.
  • LoD residual rank (n-r) = 16
    Number of singular components kept learnable in the low-rank decomposition; authors tested {1,4,16,64} and report 16 as best, but no table is shown.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Cover image semantics are concentrated in low frequencies; DIH embeds secrets in high frequencies.
    Stated in Sec. 3.2 and used to justify LFAD and SFDA. The paper's own failure cases with dense cover objects show the assumption can break, making it load-bearing.
  • domain assumption An attacker who intercepts x_stego will not suspect it contains a face because it visually resembles a natural cover.
    This is the core 'avoid raising suspicion' promise. It is supported only by PSNR/SSIM of one image pair, with no steganalysis attack or human perceptual study.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'forgery-specific subspace' and 'semantic subspace' are separable via SVD low-rank decomposition in LoD.
    Introduced in Sec. 3.3 to justify freezing low-rank weights and tuning only the residual. It is a modelling hypothesis with no independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection via Fine-Grained Steganographic Domain Lifting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PXCQQBHX

@misc{pith2026260302886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection via Fine-Grained Steganographic Domain Lifting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PXCQQBHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.02886}
}
read the original abstract

Most existing Face Forgery Detection (FFD) models assume access to raw face images. In practice, under a client-server framework, private facial data may be intercepted during transmission or leaked by untrusted servers. Previous privacy protection approaches, such as anonymization, encryption, or distortion, partly mitigate leakage but often introduce severe semantic distortion, making images appear obviously protected. This alerts attackers, provoking more aggressive strategies and turning the process into a cat-and-mouse game. Moreover, these methods heavily manipulate image contents, introducing degradation or artifacts that may confuse FFD models, which rely on extremely subtle forgery traces. Inspired by advances in image steganography, which enable high-fidelity hiding and recovery, we propose a Stega}nography-based Face Forgery Detection framework (StegaFFD) to protect privacy without raising suspicion. StegaFFD hides facial images within natural cover images and directly conducts forgery detection in the steganographic domain. However, the hidden forgery-specific features are extremely subtle and interfered with by cover semantics, posing significant challenges. To address this, we propose Low-Frequency-Aware Decomposition (LFAD) and Spatial-Frequency Differential Attention (SFDA), which suppress interference from low-frequency cover semantics and enhance hidden facial feature perception. Furthermore, we introduce Steganographic Domain Alignment (SDA) to align the representations of hidden faces with those of their raw counterparts, enhancing the model's ability to perceive subtle facial cues in the steganographic domain. Extensive experiments on seven FFD datasets demonstrate that StegaFFD achieves strong imperceptibility, avoids raising attackers' suspicion, and better preserves FFD accuracy compared to existing facial privacy protection methods.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Thies, J., Zollhofer, M., Stamminger, M., Theobalt, C., Nießner, M.: Face2face: Real-time face capture and reenactment of rgb videos. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2387–2395 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1–18 (2025)

    Lin, X., Liu, A., Yu, Z., Cai, R., Wang, S., Yu, Y., Wan, J., Lei, Z., Cao, X., Kot, A.: Reliable and balanced transfer learning for generalized multimodal face anti-spoofing. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1–18 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Lin, X., Wang, S., Cai, R., Liu, Y., Fu, Y., Tang, W., Yu, Z., Kot, A.C.: Suppress and rebalance: Towards generalized multi-modal face anti- spoofing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 211–221 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1–18 (2025)

    Cai, R., Cui, Y., Yu, Z., Lin, X., Chen, C., Kot, A.: Rehearsal-free and efficient continual learning for cross-domain face anti-spoofing. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1–18 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence7(2), 604–609 (2021)

    Li, M., Cheung, Y.-m.: Identity-preserved complete face recovering net- work for partial face image. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence7(2), 604–609 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Patterns5(9), 101038 (2024)

    Lin, X., Tang, W., Wang, H., Liu, Y., Ju, Y., Wang, S., Yu, Z.: Expos- ing image splicing traces in scientific publications via uncertainty-guided refinement. Patterns5(9), 101038 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Pattern Recognition133, 109026 (2023)

    Lin, X., Wang, S., Deng, J., Fu, Y., Bai, X., Chen, X., Qu, X., Tang, W.: Image manipulation detection by multiple tampering traces and edge artifact enhancement. Pattern Recognition133, 109026 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Pattern Recognition Letters176, 167–173 (2023)

    Wang, H., Deng, J., Lin, X., Tang, W., Wang, S.: Cds-net: Cooper- ative dual-stream network for image manipulation detection. Pattern Recognition Letters176, 167–173 (2023)

    2023

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security19, 1168–1182 (2024)

    Luo, A., Kong, C., Huang, J., Hu, Y., Kang, X., Kot, A.C.: Beyond the prior forgery knowledge: Mining critical clues for general face forgery detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security19, 1168–1182 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology35(5), 4116–4129 (2025) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection25

    Luo, A., Cai, R., Kong, C., Ju, Y., Kang, X., Huang, J., Kot, A.C.: Forgery-aware adaptive learning with vision transformer for generalized face forgery detection. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology35(5), 4116–4129 (2025) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX ...

    2025

  3. [11]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security17, 1741–1756 (2022)

    Kong, C., Chen, B., Li, H., Wang, S., Rocha, A., Kwong, S.: Detect and locate: Exposing face manipulation by semantic- and noise-level telltales. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security17, 1741–1756 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    arXivabs/2404.08452(2024)

    Kong, C., Luo, A., Xia, S., Yu, Y., Li, H., Kot, A.C.: Moe-ffd: Mixture of experts for generalized and parameter-efficient face forgery detection. arXivabs/2404.08452(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia (2025)

    Lai, Y., Yu, Z., Yang, J., Li, B., Kang, X., Shen, L.: GM-DF: Gener- alized multi-scenario deepfake detection. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security, pp

    Yang, X., Li, Y., Qi, H., Lyu, S.: Exposing gan-synthesized faces using landmark locations. In: Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security, pp. 113–118 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Electronic Imaging31(5) (2019)

    Nataraj, L., Mohammed, T.M., Manjunath, B., Chandrasekaran, S., Flenner, A., Bappy, J.H., Roy-Chowdhury, A.K.: Detecting gan gener- ated fake images using co-occurrence matrices. Electronic Imaging31(5) (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Digital Signal Processing134, 103895 (2023)

    Lin, H., Huang, W., Luo, W., Lu, W.: Deepfake detection with multi- scale convolution and vision transformer. Digital Signal Processing134, 103895 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Journal of Robotics2022(1), 7169594 (2022)

    Ma, G., Wang, Z., Yuan, X., Zhou, F.: Improving model-based deep reinforcement learning with learning degree networks and its application in robot control. Journal of Robotics2022(1), 7169594 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Multimedia25, 8445–8457 (2023)

    Ma, G., Bai, Y., Zhang, W., Yao, T., Shihada, B., Mei, T.: Boost- ing generic visual-linguistic representation with dynamic contexts. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia25, 8445–8457 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (2024)

    Meng, R., Yi, C., Yu, Y., Yang, S., Shen, B., Kot, A.C.: Semantic deep hiding for robust unlearnable examples. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    In: Proc

    Yu, Y., Yang, W., Tan, Y.-P., Kot, A.C.: Towards robust rain removal against adversarial attacks: A comprehensive benchmark analysis and beyond. In: Proc. IEEE Int’l Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 6013–6022 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    In: Proc

    Yu, Y., Wang, Y., Yang, W., Lu, S., Tan, Y.-P., Kot, A.C.: Backdoor attacks against deep image compression via adaptive frequency trigger. In: Proc. IEEE Int’l Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 12250–12259 (2023) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template 26StegaFFD:...

    2023

  14. [22]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024 (2024)

    Yu, Y., Wang, Y., Xia, S., Yang, W., Lu, S., Tan, Y.-P., Kot, A.C.: Purify unlearnable examples via rate-constrained variational autoencoders. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    IEEE Trans

    Yu, Y., Wang, Y., Yang, W., Guo, L., Lu, S., Duan, L.-Y., Tan, Y.-P., Kot, A.C.: Robust and transferable backdoor attacks against deep image compression with selective frequency prior. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    In: Proc

    Yu, Y., Xia, S., Lin, X., Yang, W., Lu, S., Tan, Y.-P., Kot, A.: Backdoor attacks against no-reference image quality assessment models via a scal- able trigger. In: Proc. AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, pp. 9698–9706 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (2025)

    Yu, Y., Xia, S., Lin, X., Kong, C., Yang, W., Lu, S., Tan, Y.-P., Kot, A.C.: Towards model resistant to transferable adversarial examples via trigger activation. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning (2025)

    Yu, Y., Xia, S., Yang, S., Kong, C., Yang, W., Lu, S., Tan, Y.-P., Kot, A.: Mtl-ue: Learning to learn nothing for multi-task learning. In: International Conference on Machine Learning (2025). PMLR

    2025

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07483 (2025)

    Wu, Q., Yu, Y., Kong, C., Liu, Z., Wan, J., Li, H., Kot, A.C., Chan, A.B.: Temporal unlearnable examples: Preventing personal video data from unauthorized exploitation by object tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07483 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    IEEE Communications Magazine56(2), 163–168 (2018)

    Luo, E., Bhuiyan, M.Z.A., Wang, G., Rahman, M.A., Wu, J., Atiquzza- man, M.: Privacyprotector: Privacy-protected patient data collection in iot-based healthcare systems. IEEE Communications Magazine56(2), 163–168 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Nature Machine Intelligence2(6), 305–311 (2020)

    Kaissis, G.A., Makowski, M.R., R¨ uckert, D., Braren, R.F.: Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging. Nature Machine Intelligence2(6), 305–311 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    IEEE Trans- actions on Information Forensics and Security12(5), 1156–1169 (2017)

    Bagai, R., Malik, N., Jadliwala, M.: Measuring anonymity of pseudonymized data after probabilistic background attacks. IEEE Trans- actions on Information Forensics and Security12(5), 1156–1169 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Nature Machine Intelligence3(6), 473–484 (2021)

    Kaissis, G., Ziller, A., Passerat-Palmbach, J., Ryffel, T., Usynin, D., Trask, A., Lima Jr, I., Mancuso, J., Jungmann, F., Steinborn, M.-M.,et al.: End-to-end privacy preserving deep learning on multi-institutional medical imaging. Nature Machine Intelligence3(6), 473–484 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Journal of Medical Systems42, 1–11 (2018)

    Avudaiappan, T., Balasubramanian, R., Pandiyan, S.S., Saravanan, M., Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection27 Lakshmanaprabu, S., Shankar, K.: Medical image security using dual encryption with oppositional based optimization alg...

    2026

  25. [33]

    In: British Machine Vision Conference, p

    Kim, B.N., Dolz, J., Desrosiers, C., Jodoin, P.: Privacy preserving for medical image analysis via non-linear deformation proxy. In: British Machine Vision Conference, p. 375 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition, pp

    Li, J., Han, L., Zhang, H., Han, X., Ge, J., Cao, X.: Learning disentangled representations for identity preserving surveillance face camouflage. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition, pp. 9748–9755 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Pattern Recognition, 110424 (2024)

    Guan, H., Yap, P.-T., Bozoki, A., Liu, M.: Federated learning for medical image analysis: A survey. Pattern Recognition, 110424 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Journal of Systems Architecture152, 103163 (2024)

    Liu, Y., Jia, Z., Jiang, Z., Lin, X., Liu, J., Wu, Q., Susilo, W.: Bfl-sa: Blockchain-based federated learning via enhanced secure aggregation. Journal of Systems Architecture152, 103163 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery13(4) (2023)

    Gaudio, A., Smailagic, A., Faloutsos, C., Mohan, S., Johnson, E., Liu, Y., Costa, P., Campilho, A.:DeepFixCX: Explainable privacy-preserving image compression for medical image analysis. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery13(4) (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, vol

    Packh¨ auser, K., G¨ undel, S., Thamm, F., Denzinger, F., Maier, A.K.: Deep learning-based anonymization of chest radiographs: A utility- preserving measure for patient privacy. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, vol. 14222, pp. 262–272 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    IEEE Trans

    Kim, B.N., Dolz, J., Jodoin, P., Desrosiers, C.: Privacy-net: An adver- sarial approach for identity-obfuscated segmentation of medical images. IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging40(7), 1737–1749 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Journal of Biomedical Informatics150, 104583 (2024)

    Shiri, I., Razeghi, B., Ferdowsi, S., Salimi, Y., G¨ und¨ uz, D., Teodoro, D., Voloshynovskiy, S., Zaidi, H.: Primis: Privacy-preserving medical image sharing via deep sparsifying transform learning with obfuscation. Journal of Biomedical Informatics150, 104583 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics27(12), 5946–5957 (2023)

    Yang, Z., Chen, Y., Huangfu, H., Ran, M., Wang, H., Li, X., Zhang, Y.: Dynamic corrected split federated learning with homomorphic encryp- tion for u-shaped medical image networks. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics27(12), 5946–5957 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    IEEE Trans

    Zhu, D., Zhu, H., Huang, C., Lu, R., Feng, D., Shen, X.: Efficient and accurate cloud-assisted medical pre-diagnosis with privacy preservation. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput.21(2), 860–875 (2024) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template 28StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Fo...

    2024

  35. [43]

    IEEE Trans

    Guan, Z., Jing, J., Deng, X., Xu, M., Jiang, L., Zhang, Z., Li, Y.: Deep- mih: Deep invertible network for multiple image hiding. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.45(1), 372–390 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    In: International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Jing, J., Deng, X., Xu, M., Wang, J., Guan, Z.: Hinet: Deep image hiding by invertible network. In: International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 4733–4742 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2024)

    Li, G., Li, S., Luo, Z., Qian, Z., Zhang, X.: Purified and unified stegano- graphic network. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp

    Lin, X., Yu, Y., Yu, Z., Meng, R., Zhou, J., Liu, A., Liu, Y., Wang, S., Tang, W., Lei, Z., Kot, A.C.: HideMIA: Hidden wavelet mining for privacy-enhancing medical image analysis. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 8110–8119 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Deng, X., Gao, C., Xu, M.: Pirnet: Privacy-preserving image restora- tion network via wavelet lifting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 22311–22320 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    Chen, L., Fu, Y., Gu, L., Yan, C., Harada, T., Huang, G.: Frequency- aware feature fusion for dense image prediction. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Chen, L., Gu, L., Zheng, D., Fu, Y.: Frequency-adaptive dilated con- volution for semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3414–3425 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Yang, L., Zhang, R.-Y., Li, L., Xie, X.: Simam: A simple, parameter-free attention module for convolutional neural networks. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 11863–11874 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(8), 10555–10579 (2023)

    Li, Z., Xu, P., Chang, X., Yang, L., Zhang, Y., Yao, L., Chen, X.: When object detection meets knowledge distillation: A survey. IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(8), 10555–10579 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    In: International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology, pp

    Sadeghi, A.-R., Schneider, T., Wehrenberg, I.: Efficient privacy- preserving face recognition. In: International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology, pp. 229–244 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Huang, Y., Song, Z., Li, K., Arora, S.: Instahide: Instance-hiding schemes for private distributed learning. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 4507–4518 (2020) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection29

    2020

  46. [54]

    IEEE Internet of Things Journal6(3), 5778–5790 (2019)

    Ma, Z., Liu, Y., Liu, X., Ma, J., Ren, K.: Lightweight privacy-preserving ensemble classification for face recognition. IEEE Internet of Things Journal6(3), 5778–5790 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Wang, Y., Liu, J., Luo, M., Yang, L., Wang, L.: Privacy-preserving face recognition in the frequency domain. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, pp. 2558–2566 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Neurocomputing363, 212–222 (2019)

    Li, Y., Wang, Y., Li, D.: Privacy-preserving lightweight face recognition. Neurocomputing363, 212–222 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    In: IEEE Asia Pacific Conference on Circuits and Systems, pp

    Ergun, O.O.: Privacy preserving face recognition in encrypted domain. In: IEEE Asia Pacific Conference on Circuits and Systems, pp. 643–646 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    In: IEEE Inter- national Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance, pp

    Winkler, T., Rinner, B.: Trustcam: Security and privacy-protection for an embedded smart camera based on trusted computing. In: IEEE Inter- national Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance, pp. 593–600 (2010)

    2010

  51. [59]

    In: International Symposium on Visual Computing, pp

    Hukkel ˚ as, H., Mester, R., Lindseth, F.: Deepprivacy: A generative adver- sarial network for face anonymization. In: International Symposium on Visual Computing, pp. 565–578 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems30(2017)

    Zhao, J., Xiong, L., Karlekar Jayashree, P., Li, J., Zhao, F., Wang, Z., Sugiri Pranata, P., Shengmei Shen, P., Yan, S., Feng, J.: Dual-agent gans for photorealistic and identity preserving profile face synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems30(2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp

    Yuan, L., Liu, L., Pu, X., Li, Z., Li, H., Gao, X.: Pro-face: A generic framework for privacy-preserving recognizable obfuscation of face images. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 1661–1669 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security18, 3074–3087 (2023)

    Zhang, Y., Wang, T., Zhao, R., Wen, W., Zhu, Y.: Rapp: Reversible privacy preservation for various face attributes. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security18, 3074–3087 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    IEEE Signal Processing Letters30, 773–777 (2023)

    Wang, T., Zhang, Y., Zhao, R., Wen, W., Lan, R.: Identifiable face privacy protection via virtual identity transformation. IEEE Signal Processing Letters30, 773–777 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2069–2079 (2017)

    Baluja, S.: Hiding images in plain sight: Deep steganography. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2069–2079 (2017)

  57. [65]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Hayes, J., Danezis, G.: Generating steganographic images via adversarial training. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template 30StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection 1954–1963 (2017)

    2026

  58. [66]

    Knowledge-Based Systems223, 107022 (2021)

    Liu, L., Meng, L., Peng, Y., Wang, X.: A data hiding scheme based on u-net and wavelet transform. Knowledge-Based Systems223, 107022 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Pattern Recognition45(12), 4292–4299 (2012)

    He, Z., Lu, W., Sun, W., Huang, J.: Digital image splicing detec- tion based on markov features in DCT and DWT domain. Pattern Recognition45(12), 4292–4299 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    In: European Conferenceon Computer Vision, pp

    Xiao, M., Zheng, S., Liu, C., Wang, Y., He, D., Ke, G., Bian, J., Lin, Z., Liu, T.-Y.: Invertible image rescaling. In: European Conferenceon Computer Vision, pp. 126–144 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Xing, Y., Qian, Z., Chen, Q.: Invertible image signal processing. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 6287–6296 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Lu, S., Wang, R., Zhong, T., Rosin, P.L.: Large-capacity image steganog- raphy based on invertible neural networks. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10816–10825 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Signal and Image Processing, pp

    Zhang, Y., Zheng, L., Thing, V.L.: Automated face swapping and its detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Signal and Image Processing, pp. 15–19 (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    In: Proceedings of the Irish Machine Vision and Image Processing Conference, pp

    Koopman, M., Rodriguez, A.M., Geradts, Z.: Detection of deepfake video manipulation. In: Proceedings of the Irish Machine Vision and Image Processing Conference, pp. 133–136 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    In: IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security, pp

    Afchar, D., Nozick, V., Yamagishi, J., Echizen, I.: Mesonet: a compact facial video forgery detection network. In: IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security, pp. 1–7 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Rossler, A., Cozzolino, D., Verdoliva, L., Riess, C., Thies, J., Nießner, M.: Faceforensics++: Learning to detect manipulated facial images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1–11 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Zhang, Y., Ma, G., Hao, G., Guo, L., Chen, Y., Yu, S.: Efficient rein- forcement learning through adaptively pretrained visual encoder. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, pp. 22668–22676 (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    Nguyen, H.H., Fang, F., Yamagishi, J., Echizen, I.: Multi-task learning for detecting and segmenting manipulated facial images and videos. In: Proceedings on IEEE International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Fa...

    2026

  69. [77]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp

    Nguyen, H.H., Yamagishi, J., Echizen, I.: Capsule-forensics: Using cap- sule networks to detect forged images and videos. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp. 2307–2311 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Qian, Y., Yin, G., Sheng, L., Chen, Z., Shao, J.: Thinking in frequency: Face forgery detection by mining frequency-aware clues. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 86–103 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Liu, H., Li, X., Zhou, W., Chen, Y., He, Y., Xue, H., Zhang, W., Yu, N.: Spatial-phase shallow learning: rethinking face forgery detection in frequency domain. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 772–781 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Durall, R., Keuper, M., Keuper, J.: Watch your up-convolution: Cnn based generative deep neural networks are failing to reproduce spec- tral distributions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 7890–7899 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Yan, Z., Zhang, Y., Fan, Y., Wu, B.: Ucf: Uncovering common features for generalizable deepfake detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 22412–22423 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    In: 2025 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp

    Ma, G., Zhang, Y., Dai, Y., Hao, G., Chen, Y., Yu, S.: Clustering-based weight orthogonalization for stabilizing deep reinforcement learning. In: 2025 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp. 1–9 (2025). IEEE

    2025

  75. [83]

    In: Proceedings of the 24th International Confer- ence on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp

    Ma, G., Zhang, Y., Dai, Y., Hao, G., Chen, Y., Yu, S.: Mitigating non- stationarity in deep reinforcement learning with clustering orthogonal weight modification. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Confer- ence on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 2648–2650 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Cao, J., Ma, C., Yao, T., Chen, S., Ding, S., Yang, X.: End-to-end reconstruction-classification learning for face forgery detection. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 4113–4122 (2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Wang, C., Deng, W.: Representative forgery mining for fake face detec- tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 14923–14932 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00656 (2018) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template 32StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection

    Li, Y., Lyu, S.: Exposing deepfake videos by detecting face warping artifacts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00656 (2018) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template 32StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection

    2018 arXiv

  79. [87]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Luo, Y., Zhang, Y., Yan, J., Liu, W.: Generalizing face forgery detection with high-frequency features. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16317–16326 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 10(4), 746–761 (2015)

    Wen, D., Han, H., Jain, A.K.: Face spoof detection with image distor- tion analysis. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 10(4), 746–761 (2015)

    2015

  81. [89]

    Digital Signal Processing143, 104233 (2023)

    Chen, B., Liu, X., Xia, Z., Zhao, G.: Privacy-preserving deepfake face image detection. Digital Signal Processing143, 104233 (2023)

    2023

  82. [90]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp

    Abadi, M., Chu, A., Goodfellow, I., McMahan, H.B., Mironov, I., Talwar, K., Zhang, L.: Deep learning with differential privacy. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 308–318 (2016)

    2016

  83. [91]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Luo, C., Lin, Q., Xie, W., Wu, B., Xie, J., Shen, L.: Frequency-driven imperceptible adversarial attack on semantic similarity. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 15315–15324 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Lu, H., Liu, W., Fu, H., Cao, Z.: F ADE: Fusing the assets of decoder and encoder for task-agnostic upsampling. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 231–247 (2022)

    2022

  85. [93]

    International Journal of Computer Vision131(1), 67–81 (2023)

    Zou, X., Xiao, F., Yu, Z., Li, Y., Lee, Y.J.: Delving deeper into anti- aliasing in convnets. International Journal of Computer Vision131(1), 67–81 (2023)

    2023

  86. [94]

    Laplante, P.A., Cravey, R., Dunleavy, L.P., Antonakos, J.L., LeRoy, R., East, J., Buris, N.E., Conant, C.J., Fryda, L., Boyd, R.W.,et al.: Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, (2018)

    2018

  87. [95]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems30(2017)

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, L., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems30(2017)

    2017

  88. [96]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 26(6), 8219–8232 (2025)

    Guo, X., Tang, W., Wang, H., Wang, J., Wang, S., Qu, X., Lin, X.: Mor- Former: morphology-aware transformer for generalized pavement crack segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 26(6), 8219–8232 (2025)

    2025

  89. [97]

    In: 2025 Interna- tional Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp

    Hao, G., Zhang, Y., Ma, G., Chen, Y., Alexandre, F., Yu, S.: Position paper: Large language models need episodic memory. In: 2025 Interna- tional Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp. 1–10 (2025). IEEE Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving...

    2025

  90. [98]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32, 12360–12371 (2019)

    Zhang, B., Sennrich, R.: Root mean square layer normalization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32, 12360–12371 (2019)

    2019

  91. [99]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023)

    Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozi` ere, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al.: Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  92. [100]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Wu, Y., He, K.: Group normalization. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 3–19 (2018)

    2018

  93. [101]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Wang, H., Ma, S., Huang, S., Dong, L., Wang, W., Peng, Z., Wu, Y., Bajaj, P., Singhal, S., Benhaim, A.,et al.: Magneto: A founda- tion transformer. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 36077–36092 (2023)

    2023

  94. [102]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10340 (2022)

    Qin, Z., Han, X., Sun, W., Li, D., Kong, L., Barnes, N., Zhong, Y.: The devil in linear transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10340 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  95. [103]

    In: NeurIPS 2025 Workshop on Embodied World Models for Decision Making

    Ma, G.: Decoupled planning and execution with llm-driven world mod- els for efficient reinforcement learning. In: NeurIPS 2025 Workshop on Embodied World Models for Decision Making

    2025

  96. [104]

    The Journal of Machine Learning Research 13(1), 723–773 (2012)

    Gretton, A., Borgwardt, K.M., Rasch, M.J., Sch¨ olkopf, B., Smola, A.: A kernel two-sample test. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 13(1), 723–773 (2012)

    2012

  97. [105]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pp

    Sun, B., Saenko, K.: Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pp. 443–450 (2016)

    2016

  98. [106]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Chen, C., Fu, Z., Chen, Z., Jin, S., Cheng, Z., Jin, X., Hua, X.-S.: Homm: Higher-order moment matching for unsupervised domain adaptation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, pp. 3422–3429 (2020)

    2020

  99. [107]

    In: IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pp

    P´ erez-Cruz, F.: Kullback-leibler divergence estimation of continuous dis- tributions. In: IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pp. 1666–1670 (2008)

    2008

  100. [108]

    In: European Signal Processing Conference, pp

    Jose, S.T., Simeone, O.: Information-theoretic bounds on transfer gener- alization gap based on jensen-shannon divergence. In: European Signal Processing Conference, pp. 1461–1465 (2021)

    2021

  101. [109]

    Probability Theory and Related Fields70(1), 117–129 (1985) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template 34StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection

    R¨ uschendorf, L.: The wasserstein distance and approximation theorems. Probability Theory and Related Fields70(1), 117–129 (1985) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template 34StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection

    1985

  102. [110]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security19, 920–933 (2023)

    Xue, Y., Wu, J., Ji, R., Zhong, P., Wen, J., Peng, W.: Adaptive domain- invariant feature extraction for cross-domain linguistic steganalysis. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security19, 920–933 (2023)

    2023

  103. [111]

    In: Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (2025)

    Ye, T., Dong, L., Xia, Y., Sun, Y., Zhu, Y., Huang, G., Wei, F.: Differen- tial transformer. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations (2025)

    2025

  104. [112]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Li, Y., Yang, X., Sun, P., Qi, H., Lyu, S.: Celeb-df: A large-scale chal- lenging dataset for deepfake forensics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 3207–3216 (2020)

    2020

  105. [113]

    IEEE Access10, 25494–25513 (2022)

    Rana, M.S., Nobi, M.N., Murali, B., Sung, A.H.: Deepfake detection: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access10, 25494–25513 (2022)

    2022

  106. [114]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08854 (2019)

    Dolhansky, B., Howes, R., Pflaum, B., Baram, N., Ferrer, C.C.: The deepfake detection challenge (dfdc) preview dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08854 (2019)

    1910 arXiv

  107. [115]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07397 (2020)

    Dolhansky, B., Bitton, J., Pflaum, B., Lu, J., Howes, R., Wang, M., Fer- rer, C.C.: The deepfake detection challenge (dfdc) dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07397 (2020)

    2006 arXiv

  108. [116]

    In: IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security, pp

    Li, Y., Chang, M.-C., Lyu, S.: In ictu oculi: Exposing ai created fake videos by detecting eye blinking. In: IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security, pp. 1–7 (2018)

    2018

  109. [117]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Li, L., Bao, J., Yang, H., Chen, D., Wen, F.: Advancing high fidelity iden- tity swapping for forgery detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5074–5083 (2020)

    2020

  110. [118]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Barattin, S., Tzelepis, C., Patras, I., Sebe, N.: Attribute-preserving face dataset anonymization via latent code optimization. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 8001–8010 (2023)

    2023

  111. [119]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, pp

    Weng, X., Li, Y., Chi, L., Mu, Y.: High-capacity convolutional video steganography with temporal residual modeling. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, pp. 87–95 (2019)

    2019

  112. [120]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Zhu, J., Kaplan, R., Johnson, J., Fei-Fei, L.: Hidden: Hiding data with deep networks. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 657–672 (2018) Springer Nature 2026 LATEX template StegaFFD: Privacy-Preserving Face Forgery Detection35

    2018

  113. [121]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence42(7), 1685–1697 (2019)

    Baluja, S.: Hiding images within images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence42(7), 1685–1697 (2019)

    2019

  114. [122]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Jing, J., Deng, X., Xu, M., Wang, J., Guan, Z.: Hinet: Deep image hiding by invertible network. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 4733–4742 (2021)

    2021

  115. [123]

    Image and Vision Computing47, 3–18 (2016)

    Sagonas, C., Antonakos, E., Tzimiropoulos, G., Zafeiriou, S., Pantic, M.: 300 faces in-the-wild challenge: Database and results. Image and Vision Computing47, 3–18 (2016)

    2016

  116. [124]

    International Journal of Computer Vision128(2), 336–359 (2020)

    Selvaraju, R.R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., Batra, D.: Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient- based localization. International Journal of Computer Vision128(2), 336–359 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.