Unlocking the Potential of Lightweight Quantized Models for Deepfake Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attribution algorithms play an instrumental role in human interpretation of AI models. The methods measure the importance of the input features to the model output decision, which can be displayed as an attribution map for image classifiers. Perturbation tests are the state-of-the-art approach to evaluate the quality of an attribution map. Unfortunately, we observe that perturbation tests fail to consider attribution magnitude, which translates into inconsistent quality scores. In this paper, we propose Magnitude Aligned Scoring (MAS), a new attribution quality metric that measures the alignment between the magnitude of the attributions and the model response. In particular, the metric accounts for both the relative ordering and the magnitude of the pixels within an attribution. In the experimental evaluation, we compare the MAS metric with existing metrics across a wide range of models, datasets, attributions, and evaluations. The results demonstrate that the MAS metric is 4x more sensitive to attribution changes, 2x more consistent, and 1.6x more invariant to baseline modifications. Our code and the referenced appendix are publicly available via https://github.com/chasewalker26/Magnitude-Aligned-Scoring.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".