MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288075323 · doi:10.18280/ts.390330

Deepfakes Classification of Faces Using Convolutional Neural Networks

2022· article· en· W4288075323 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media Forensic Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Khalid University
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBenchmark (surveying)UploadFace (sociological concept)Transfer of learningPattern recognition (psychology)Generative modelDeep learningMachine learningGenerative grammar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the recent years, petabytes of data is being generated and uploaded online every second. To successfully detect fake contents, a deepfake detection technique is used to determine whether the uploaded content is real or fake. In this paper, a convolutional neural network-based model is proposed to detect the fake face images. The generative adversarial networks and data augmentation are used to generate the face dataset for real and fake face classification. Transfer learning techniques from pretrained deep models such as VGG16 and ResNet50 are employed in the proposed model. The proposed model is evaluated on three benchmark datasets, namely 140k Real and Fake Faces, Real and Fake Face Detection, and Fake Faces. The proposed model attained accuracies over the three datasets are 95.85%, 53.25%, and 88.63%, respectively. Moreover, to improve the obtained results of the proposed model, we combine it with other pretrained models of VGG16 and ResNet50 to construct deep ensembles. The overall performance is greatly improved with the ensemble model achieving accuracies on the three datasets as 98.79%, 75.79%, and 95.52%, respectively. Furthermore, the obtained results also show that the proposed models have superior performance than existing models.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it