A Novel Defensive Strategy for Facial Manipulation Detection Combining Bilateral Filtering and Joint Adversarial Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial manipulation enables facial expressions to be tampered with or facial identities to be replaced in videos. The fake videos are so realistic that they are even difficult for human eyes to distinguish. This poses a great threat to social and public information security. A number of facial manipulation detectors have been proposed to address this threat. However, previous studies have shown that the accuracy of these detectors is sensitive to adversarial examples. The existing defense methods are very limited in terms of applicable scenes and defense effects. This paper proposes a new defense strategy for facial manipulation detectors, which combines a passive defense method, bilateral filtering, and a proactive defense method, joint adversarial training, to mitigate the vulnerability of facial manipulation detectors against adversarial examples. The bilateral filtering method is applied in the preprocessing stage of the model without any modification to denoise the input adversarial examples. The joint adversarial training starts from the training stage of the model, which mixes various adversarial examples and original examples to train the model. The introduction of joint adversarial training can train a model that defends against multiple adversarial attacks. The experimental results show that the proposed defense strategy positively helps facial manipulation detectors counter adversarial examples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".