Deep Deception Detector: Exposing AI Generated Fake Video
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
Deepfakes are artificially generated videos or images created to falsely portray someone as saying or doing things they never actually did. These manipulated media forms can lead to serious issues, especially when circulated on social media platforms. As a result, detecting deepfakes has become increasingly critical. This project builds on an existing detection method called FAMM, which targets identifying deepfakes, particularly in videos that have been compressed. The original FAMM approach analyzes facial movements by calculating distances and angles between key facial landmarks, such as the eyes, nose, and mouth, and observing how these points change over time. In this earlier method, GRU and SVM models were used to capture the temporal and static changes, and their outputs were combined to determine whether the video was authentic or fake. In our updated approach, we introduce more advanced techniques. We replace the GRU with a Transformer model, which offers improved capabilities in capturing time-based changes in facial movements. Additionally, we implement EfficientNet to extract more precise features from the face images. The data from both models are processed and then combined through a fusion strategy to reach a final classification of whether the video is real or fake. With these advancements, our system demonstrates improved accuracy in detecting deepfakes, even in low-quality or compressed videos. This project highlights how cutting-edge deep learning techniques can better address the spread of deepfakes on social media platforms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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