Exposing Fake Faces Through Deep Neural Networks Combining Content and Trace Feature Extractors
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
Abstract: In recent times, the proliferation of free deep learning-based software has facilitated the emergence of convincing facial swaps in videos, commonly referred to as ‘DeepFake’ (DF) videos. ‘Deep learning’ has improved the realism and accessibility of creating fake digital video content, which was previously attainable through traditional visual effects. These AIgenerated media, often referred to as DF, present a dual challenge: their creation is relatively straightforward using AI tools, yet their detection poses a significant hurdle. We address this challenge by employing Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and ‘Recurrent Neural Networks’ (RNNs) to identify ‘DFs’. Specifically, our system utilizes a CNN to obtain frame level characteristics and apply them to train an RNN capable of identifying temporal inconsistencies introduced by DF creation tools. We evaluate our approach on a substantial dataset of fake videos and demonstrate competitive performance with a straightforward architecture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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