REVIEW 1 cited by
DeepFake Detection with Inconsistent Head Poses: Reproducibility and Analysis
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Applications of deep learning to synthetic media generation allow the creation of convincing forgeries, called DeepFakes, with limited technical expertise. DeepFake detection is an increasingly active research area. In this paper, we analyze an existing DeepFake detection technique based on head pose estimation, which can be applied when fake images are generated with an autoencoder-based face swap. Existing literature suggests that this method is an effective DeepFake detector, and its motivating principles are attractively simple. With an eye towards using these principles to develop new DeepFake detectors, we conduct a reproducibility study of the existing method. We conclude that its merits are dramatically overstated, despite its celebrated status. By investigating this discrepancy we uncover a number of important and generalizable insights related to facial landmark detection, identity-agnostic head pose estimation, and algorithmic bias in DeepFake detectors. Our results correct the current literature's perception of state of the art performance for DeepFake detection.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
How Good is ChatGPT at Audiovisual Deepfake Detection: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT, AI Models and Human Perception
ChatGPT with carefully engineered prompts detects audiovisual deepfakes at about the same accuracy as humans (65%), below specialized detectors (87.5% to 97.5%), on a 40-video benchmark.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.