Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Deepfake detection: humans vs. machines

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 2009.03155 v1 pith:GZ2RSGXS submitted 2020-09-07 cs.CV cs.MMeess.IV

classification cs.CVcs.MMeess.IV
keywords deepfakevideosdifferentvideodetectionevaluationfacehumans
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Deepfake videos, where a person's face is automatically swapped with a face of someone else, are becoming easier to generate with more realistic results. In response to the threat such manipulations can pose to our trust in video evidence, several large datasets of deepfake videos and many methods to detect them were proposed recently. However, it is still unclear how realistic deepfake videos are for an average person and whether the algorithms are significantly better than humans at detecting them. In this paper, we present a subjective study conducted in a crowdsourcing-like scenario, which systematically evaluates how hard it is for humans to see if the video is deepfake or not. For the evaluation, we used 120 different videos (60 deepfakes and 60 originals) manually pre-selected from the Facebook deepfake database, which was provided in the Kaggle's Deepfake Detection Challenge 2020. For each video, a simple question: "Is face of the person in the video real of fake?" was answered on average by 19 na\"ive subjects. The results of the subjective evaluation were compared with the performance of two different state of the art deepfake detection methods, based on Xception and EfficientNets (B4 variant) neural networks, which were pre-trained on two other large public databases: the Google's subset from FaceForensics++ and the recent Celeb-DF dataset. The evaluation demonstrates that while the human perception is very different from the perception of a machine, both successfully but in different ways are fooled by deepfakes. Specifically, algorithms struggle to detect those deepfake videos, which human subjects found to be very easy to spot.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AuthGuard: Generalizable Deepfake Detection via Language Guidance

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AuthGuard trains a deepfake vision encoder with MLLM-generated text descriptions plus uncertainty-weighted contrastive learning, improving cross-dataset deepfake detection and adding interpretable LLM reasoning.

Pith tools