Deep learning based DeepFake video detection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in DeepFake face-swapping technology have made it simple to create fake videos that appear remarkably real. Since it has been employed in numerous instances for deceit, extortion, and the falsification of facts, its widespread use has generated a huge social, security, and political risk. Its use on websites and social media has become more widespread. Detecting this crime is becoming more and more important due to the potential harm false videos may inflict on a global scale. This research offers a method for building a deep learning model that really can tell the difference between authentic and false videos. The article describes how to create new models based on the VGG16 neural network, a previously created neural network that does image categorization, using transfer learning in the computer vision field. Deep learning is still becoming better at both producing and spotting DeepFakes. DeepFake detection algorithms are developed using dated public datasets, and as a result, they may become obsolete with time. and require continual updating. The research findings are encouraging, and our results reached an accuracy rate of over 90%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it