Deepfake Detection: A Comprehensive Survey from the Reliability Perspective
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
The mushroomed Deepfake synthetic materials circulated on the internet have raised a profound social impact on politicians, celebrities, and individuals worldwide. In this survey, we provide a thorough review of the existing Deepfake detection studies from the reliability perspective. We identify three reliability-oriented research challenges in the current Deepfake detection domain: transferability, interpretability, and robustness. Moreover, while solutions have been frequently addressed regarding the three challenges, the general reliability of a detection model has been barely considered, leading to the lack of reliable evidence in real-life usages and even for prosecutions on Deepfake-related cases in court. We, therefore, introduce a model reliability study metric using statistical random sampling knowledge and the publicly available benchmark datasets to review the reliability of the existing detection models on arbitrary Deepfake candidate suspects. Case studies are further executed to justify the real-life Deepfake cases including different groups of victims with the help of the reliably qualified detection models as reviewed in this survey. Reviews and experiments on the existing approaches provide informative discussions and future research directions for Deepfake detection.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it