Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 42 references

GLCF: A Global-Local Multimodal Coherence Analysis Framework for Talking Face Generation Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Talking-face forgeries can be detected by checking global and local coherence across frames and audio, on a new 143,754-video benchmark where the proposed method reaches 88.49% accuracy.

desk verdict Large TFG dataset and a competent detector, but the test-set composition hides whether gains generalize to unseen generators. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13656 v2 pith:2UQLSWO6 submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CV

Xiaocan Chen , Qilin Yin , Jiarui Liu , Wei Lu , Xiangyang Luo , Jiantao Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords talkingfacegenerationdetectiondeepfakemultimodalforgeryaudiovisualcoherencetemporalvideoforensicsdatasetcross-attentionfusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Talking-face generation can turn a single image and a script into a realistic video, and detecting such forgeries is harder than detecting classic deepfakes because the generated videos are cleaner and better synchronized. The paper's claim is that a dedicated large-scale dataset plus a detection framework built on coherence analysis can close much of that gap. It introduces MSTF, the first large-scale multi-scenario talking-face dataset with 22 forgery techniques, and GLCF, which checks global temporal smoothness, subtle inter-frame discrepancies, and local audiovisual consistency. If the claim holds, forgery detection no longer needs to rely on visible spatial artifacts and can move to temporal and cross-modal cues that survive high-quality generation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the global-local multimodal coherence decomposition of a talking-face video. It is operationalized by three modules: RSFDM, which computes inter-frame differences and uses an attention-like weighting to emphasize moving regions such as the mouth; DCTAM, which builds a pixel-level temporal similarity matrix, computes variance along the time axis to activate anomalous regions, and then aggregates spatial features from neighboring frames at multiple receptive-field granularities to align audio and visual time scales; and V-AFM, a multi-head cross-attention module that scores coherence between audio features and the aggregated visual features over local windows. A frequency-statistics branch supplies complementary spectral clues. The claimed effect is that incoherences too subtle or too slow for any single detector become visible when these scales are combined.

What would settle it

Train GLCF on MSTF and test it on a collection of talking-face videos produced by commercial or newly released generators not included in MSTF, at realistic re-encoded bitrates; if accuracy collapses toward chance while in-distribution accuracy stays near 88%, the claim that the method detects talking-face forgeries in practice is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that talking-face forgeries can be reliably detected by analyzing coherence at two scales: global temporal coherence across the whole frame sequence and local audiovisual coherence within short segments, rather than by looking only for spatial or frequency artifacts that work for older deepfakes. To support this, the authors introduce MSTF, a 143,754-video dataset covering 22 audio and video forgery techniques across 11 generation scenarios and roughly 40 semantic combinations, and GLCF, a detector with three cooperating modules: RSFDM attends to motion regions through inter-frame differences, DCTAM uses variance-activated attention over a temporal similarity matrix to expose subtle per-frame discrepancies and aggregates spatial context at multiple granularities, and V-AFM applies multi-head cross-attention between audio and visual features. On MSTF the full system reaches 88.49% accuracy, 2.37 points above the best previous detector, and when trained on FakeAVCeleb and tested on MSTF it reaches 61.94%, the highest cross-dataset score in the comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The MSTF test set is largely produced by the same five tools used in training, with only small slices from two unseen sources, so accuracy on MSTF is assumed to predict performance on forgeries made by tools that are not in the benchmark.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Detection of talking-face forgeries needs dedicated benchmarks: methods tuned on traditional deepfake datasets such as FF++ and DFDC transfer poorly to MSTF.
  • Global temporal coherence, measured through frame-transition smoothness and subtle inter-frame discrepancies, carries signal that frame-level spatial forgery traces miss.
  • Audiovisual coherence is the largest single contributor: removing V-AFM drops accuracy by 8.27 points in the ablation study.
  • The same framework transfers to ordinary deepfake datasets, reaching 98.92% accuracy on FakeAVCeleb and 92.58% on DFDC, suggesting shared forgery cues.
  • Cross-dataset training on FakeAVCeleb and testing on MSTF still beats prior methods, indicating some generalization to unseen talking-face generators.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Implicit in the results but not stated: the cross-dataset accuracy of 61.94% is modest in absolute terms, so unseen talking-face generators remain a hard open problem and MSTF's held-out IP_LAP and LSR2 slices only begin to measure it.
  • An inference the paper does not draw: because the MSTF test set draws mostly from the same five generators seen in training, the in-distribution accuracy of 88.49% should not be read as real-world performance; an external benchmark built from commercial talking-face tools would be the natural stress test.
  • The variance-activation mechanism in DCTAM selects the k-th smallest variance as an activation threshold; tuning k per dataset may matter more than the paper reports, and a sensitivity analysis would clarify the mechanism's robustness.
  • The paper names social-media compression as future work; since real forgeries are re-encoded, compression-robust variants of RSFDM and DCTAM are the immediate next step that the paper itself points toward.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MSTF, a large-scale audio-visual talking face forgery dataset containing 143,754 videos generated with 22 forgery techniques across 11 generation scenarios, and proposes GLCF, a detection framework with three main components: RSFDM for global inter-frame coherence, DCTAM for fine-grained discrepancy capture and multi-granularity temporal aggregation, and V-AFM for local audio-visual coherence analysis, augmented by frequency-domain features. Experiments compare GLCF with eight baselines on MSTF, FF++, FakeAVCeleb, and DFDC, reporting accuracy improvements (e.g., 88.49% vs. 86.12% MiNet on MSTF) and cross-dataset results (61.94% on FakeAVCeleb-to-MSTF), along with an ablation study showing positive contributions from each module.

Significance. If the claims are properly supported, MSTF would be a valuable community resource: it is larger than earlier multimodal talking-face forgery datasets in terms of forgery techniques (22) and explicitly simulates multiple generation and semantic scenarios, addressing a real gap in TFG detection research. GLCF is also a reasonable architecture: the three modules target complementary cues (global spatiotemporal smoothness, pixel-level temporal discrepancies, and audiovisual coherence), and the ablation and cross-dataset experiments suggest the components are not redundant. The paper also deserves credit for constructing a held-out evaluation slice with unseen generators (IP_LAP) and real videos (LSR2), which is the right idea for testing generalization. However, the current empirical reporting does not establish the central generalization claim: the held-out slices are not analyzed separately, no statistical significance or variance is reported, and several baselines were re-implemented without official code. These are fixable with additional experiments and reporting rather than fundamental flaws.

major comments (4)
  1. [Dataset Distribution; Table 2] The headline MSTF accuracy of 88.49% (Table 2) is not informative about generalization because the test set is dominated by videos from the same generators used in training, with only a 'small portion' of LSR2 real videos and IP_LAP-generated videos held out. The paper must report accuracy separately for the held-out LSR2 and IP_LAP slices, and ideally a per-generator breakdown of the test set. Without this, the claim that GLCF 'shows superiority' for detecting unknown talking face forgeries is unsubstantiated, since the reported margin over MiNet (2.37%) could be driven by same-generator test videos while performance on unseen generators or real videos could be near chance.
  2. [Experiments: Performance Comparisons; Tables 2-4] All accuracy values in Tables 2, 3, and 4 are single numbers with no variance, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. Given that three baselines (RECCE, Joint A-V, and AV-D2-DWF) were re-implemented 'based on the original documentation' without official code, the comparison is not yet statistically grounded. The authors should report results over multiple random seeds (at least three) with mean and standard deviation, and perform a paired significance test where possible. This is particularly important because the claimed advantage on DFDC is only 0.13% over F3Net.
  3. [Cross-Dataset Comparisons; Table 3] The inter-dataset experiment trains on FakeAVCeleb and tests on MSTF, but the reported MSTF accuracy of 61.94% again aggregates over the same-generator and held-out slices. The only claim the table can currently support is that GLCF transfers reasonably to the overall MSTF test distribution; it does not show transfer to unseen generators. Additional experiments testing on the LSR2 and IP_LAP slices alone, and ideally testing in the reverse direction (train on MSTF, test on FakeAVCeleb or DFDC), would substantiate the claim that the method 'captures common forgery traces ... rather than relying on overfitting.'
  4. [Talking Face Dataset: Comparison with Existing Datasets; Table 1] The claim that MSTF is 'the first large-scale multi-scenario talking face dataset' is too strong given that Table 1 itself lists FakeAVCeleb (20,000 videos, audio/video) and LAV-DF (136,304 videos, audio/video), both of which contain talking-face-style generation and are described as multimodal. The paper's dismissal of these as 'limited talking face generation methods and video quantity' is contradicted by LAV-DF's size. The novelty should be reframed precisely: e.g., MSTF includes the largest number of distinct forgery techniques (22) and explicitly covers 11 generation scenarios. As written, the 'first' claim invites a dispute that weakens the paper's contribution.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Talking Face Dataset: Comparison with Existing Datasets] Typo: 'Comparision' should be 'Comparison'. Table 1 headings contain spacing errors such as 'FakeA VCeleb' and 'LA V-DF', and Table 2's caption reads 'in terms of a accuracy'.
  2. [Dataset Distribution] The text says the dataset covers 'more than 20 semantic scenarios' and then states that combining with generation scenarios yields 'about 40 different scenarios'; the relationship between semantic scenarios and the final count should be clarified so the reader can reproduce the arithmetic.
  3. [Figure 3] The test-set distribution figure should show the exact number or percentage of videos from LSR2 and IP_LAP; a small pie chart without numeric labels is not sufficient to evaluate the claim that these slices are 'small portions'.
  4. [Methodology: Discrepancy Capture-Time Frame Aggregation Module, Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the notation 'FQ × FK' is ambiguous; since the Attention Score Matrix A is described as a similarity matrix, '×' likely denotes matrix multiplication after reshaping, and this should be stated explicitly. Additionally, the definition of the variance activation function Φ (how the k-th smallest variance is selected and applied) would benefit from a concrete formula.
  5. [Methodology: Discrepancy Capture-Time Frame Aggregation Module, Eq. (3)] Eq. (3) contains 'Up1×2' and 'Down1×2' without spaces; these denote upsampling and downsampling operations, but the interpolation method (e.g., bilinear or nearest) is not specified. Also, the text says 'Fh is similar, except that the convolution kernel is transposed' but the exact transposition is not defined.
  6. [Experiments: Experimental Settings] No statement is provided about the availability of MSTF or the code for GLCF. For a dataset paper, a URL or a commitment to release the dataset and evaluation protocol is expected; without it, the community cannot reproduce or build on the benchmark.
  7. [Limitations] The Limitations section (a single sentence about compressed videos) is too terse. The analysis should at least mention the lack of real-world TFG examples in the test set and the use of face crops (MTCNN) which may discard contextual cues relevant to real-world deployment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical claims are tested on held-out and external data, with no load-bearing self-citation or definitional reduction found.

full rationale

The paper makes two central claims: introducing the MSTF dataset and showing that the proposed GLCF detector outperforms existing methods. Neither claim reduces to its own inputs by construction. MSTF is a constructed benchmark, and the method's accuracy is measured on a test set that is explicitly separated from training ("MSTF is our large-scale talking face dataset, comprising 130,095 training videos and 14,504 testing videos"). The reported MSTF accuracy in Table 2 is an empirical result on this held-out split, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The cross-dataset experiment in Table 3 trains on FakeAVCeleb and tests on MSTF, providing an external benchmark rather than a self-referential loop. The ablation study in Table 4 removes modules one at a time, so the claimed contributions of RFSDM, DCTAM, V-AFM, and LFS are empirically measured rather than definitionally implied. I found no load-bearing self-citations: the cited LFS module (Qian et al. 2020) and the baseline methods are external prior work, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors is invoked to force the design. The main weakness is that the MSTF test set is dominated by videos from the same generation methods used in training, and the held-out IP_LAP and LSR2 slices are not reported separately, which limits the strength of the generalization claim. That is a benchmark-design limitation, not circularity: the accuracy numbers are still genuine measurements on unseen videos, and no equation in the paper equals its input by construction. Overall, the paper is self-contained in its evaluation, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical deep-learning benchmark paper. It makes no first-principles derivation and introduces no physical entities; the ledger records the modeling assumptions and unreported hyperparameters that the central performance claims depend on.

free parameters (4)
  • variance activation threshold k = not reported
    In DCTAM, the k-th smallest variance among T attention scores sets the activation mask; k is a hand-chosen hyperparameter, and its value is not specified.
  • adaptive fusion weight alpha = learned (not reported)
    Equation 2 multiplies the discrepancy term by a learned adaptive weight alpha; the value is not reported.
  • number of input frames T = not reported
    The framework processes T frames per clip; T is a design choice not stated in the paper.
  • loss weighting coefficient = not reported
    The total loss is L = Lva + La with no weighting coefficient specified, leaving the balance between audio and audiovisual losses undefined.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Inter-frame differences and pixel-level discrepancies are reliable cues of talking face forgery.
    RFSDM and DCTAM are built entirely on inter-frame and inter-pixel coherence; if TFG generators correct these cues, the modules lose their basis. See Methodology, RFSDM and DCTAM sections.
  • domain assumption Pre-trained wav2vec features are sufficient audio representations for detecting generated speech.
    The audio stream maps raw audio through XLS-R and residual layers without task-specific adaptation beyond fine-tuning via La. See Audio Stream section.
  • domain assumption Face cropping and resizing to 256x256 does not destroy the forensic signal.
    All datasets are preprocessed with MTCNN and resized to 256x256; no analysis of information loss is provided. See Implementation Details.
  • domain assumption MSTF's generated test videos are representative of real-world TFG forgeries.
    The testing set mostly comes from the same five generators used in training, with small held-out IP_LAP and LSR2 portions; external validity is assumed. See Dataset Distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GLCF: A Global-Local Multimodal Coherence Analysis Framework for Talking Face Generation Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UQLSWO6

@misc{pith2026241213656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GLCF: A Global-Local Multimodal Coherence Analysis Framework for Talking Face Generation Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UQLSWO6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13656}
}
read the original abstract

Talking face generation (TFG) allows for producing lifelike talking videos of any character using only facial images and accompanying text. Abuse of this technology could pose significant risks to society, creating the urgent need for research into corresponding detection methods. However, research in this field has been hindered by the lack of public datasets. In this paper, we construct the first large-scale multi-scenario talking face dataset (MSTF), which contains 22 audio and video forgery techniques, filling the gap of datasets in this field. The dataset covers 11 generation scenarios and more than 20 semantic scenarios, closer to the practical application scenario of TFG. Besides, we also propose a TFG detection framework, which leverages the analysis of both global and local coherence in the multimodal content of TFG videos. Therefore, a region-focused smoothness detection module (RSFDM) and a discrepancy capture-time frame aggregation module (DCTAM) are introduced to evaluate the global temporal coherence of TFG videos, aggregating multi-grained spatial information. Additionally, a visual-audio fusion module (V-AFM) is designed to evaluate audiovisual coherence within a localized temporal perspective. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate the reasonableness and challenges of our datasets, while also indicating the superiority of our proposed method compared to the state-of-the-art deepfake detection approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13656 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Deepfake videos. (b) Talking face videos. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The construction of 11 scenarios. The six boxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The distribution of training set. (b) The distribution of testing set. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The diagram of the difference between frames. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The overall framework of our proposed GLCF. RFSDM and DCTAM extract spatial features, interacting with audio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The detail of RFSDM, DCTAM, V-AFM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Grad-CAM (Selvaraju et al. 2017) of model out [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ba, Z.; Liu, Q.; Liu, Z.; Wu, S.; Lin, F.; Lu, L.; and Ren, K. 2024. Exposing the deception: Uncovering more forgery clues for deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 719--728

    2024

  2. [2]

    Cai, Z.; Ghosh, S.; Dhall, A.; Gedeon, T.; Stefanov, K.; and Hayat, M. 2023. Glitch in the matrix: A large scale benchmark for content driven audio--visual forgery detection and localization. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 236: 103818

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    G.; Keutmann, M

    Cao, H.; Cooper, D. G.; Keutmann, M. K.; Gur, R. C.; Nenkova, A.; and Verma, R. 2014. Crema-d: Crowd-sourced emotional multimodal actors dataset. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 5(4): 377--390

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Cao, J.; Ma, C.; Yao, T.; Chen, S.; Ding, S.; and Yang, X. 2022. End-to-end reconstruction-classification learning for face forgery detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4113--4122

    2022

  5. [5]

    Chen, Y.; Yao, Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, H.; and Wen, X. 2023. HyperLips: Hyper Control Lips with High Resolution Decoder for Talking Face Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05720

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Cheng, K.; Cun, X.; Zhang, Y.; Xia, M.; Yin, F.; Zhu, M.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; and Wang, N. 2022. Videoretalking: Audio-based lip synchronization for talking head video editing in the wild. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers, 1--9

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    S.; Nagrani, A.; and Zisserman, A

    Chung, J. S.; Nagrani, A.; and Zisserman, A. 2018. Voxceleb2: Deep speaker recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.05622

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Dolhansky, B.; Bitton, J.; Pflaum, B.; Lu, J.; Howes, R.; Wang, M.; and Ferrer, C. C. 2020. The deepfake detection challenge (dfdc) dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07397

    arXiv 2020

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Feng, C.; Chen, Z.; and Owens, A. 2023. Self-supervised video forensics by audio-visual anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 10491--10503

    2023

  2. [10]

    Frank, J.; and Sch \"o nherr, L. 2021. Wavefake: A data set to facilitate audio deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02813

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Jiang, L.; Li, R.; Wu, W.; Qian, C.; and Loy, C. C. 2020. Deeperforensics-1.0: A large-scale dataset for real-world face forgery detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2889--2898

    2020

  4. [12]

    Karras, T.; Aila, T.; Laine, S.; and Lehtinen, J. 2018. Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation. arXiv 2017. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10196, 1--26

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Khalid, H.; Tariq, S.; Kim, M.; and Woo, S. S. 2021. FakeAVCeleb: A novel audio-video multimodal deepfake dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.05080

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Korshunov, P.; and Marcel, S. 2018. Deepfakes: a new threat to face recognition. Assessment and detection

    2018

  7. [15]

    Kwon, P.; You, J.; Nam, G.; Park, S.; and Chae, G. 2021. Kodf: A large-scale korean deepfake detection dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 10744--10753

    2021

  8. [16]

    Ma, H.; Yi, J.; Wang, C.; Yan, X.; Tao, J.; Wang, T.; Wang, S.; and Fu, R. 2022. CFAD: A Chinese dataset for fake audio detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12308

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mejri, N.; Papadopoulos, K.; and Aouada, D. 2021. Leveraging high-frequency components for deepfake detection. In IEEE 23rd International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP), 1--6

    2021

  10. [18]

    T.; and Shrivastava, A

    Mukhopadhyay, S.; Suri, S.; Gadde, R. T.; and Shrivastava, A. 2024. Diff2lip: Audio conditioned diffusion models for lip-synchronization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 5292--5302

    2024

  11. [19]

    S.; and Zisserman, A

    Nagrani, A.; Chung, J. S.; and Zisserman, A. 2017. Voxceleb: a large-scale speaker identification dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.08612

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Narayan, K.; Agarwal, H.; Thakral, K.; Mittal, S.; Vatsa, M.; and Singh, R. 2023. Df-platter: Multi-face heterogeneous deepfake dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9739--9748

    2023

  13. [21]

    Panayotov, V.; Chen, G.; Povey, D.; and Khudanpur, S. 2015. Librispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 5206--5210

    2015

  14. [22]

    Pang, M.; Wang, B.; Ye, M.; Cheung, Y.-M.; Zhou, Y.; Huang, W.; and Wen, B. 2024. Heterogeneous Prototype Learning From Contaminated Faces Across Domains via Disentangling Latent Factors. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

    2024

  15. [23]

    Peng, C.; Miao, Z.; Liu, D.; Wang, N.; Hu, R.; and Gao, X. 2024. Where Deepfakes Gaze at? Spatial-Temporal Gaze Inconsistency Analysis for Video Face Forgery Detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security

    2024

  16. [24]

    Qian, Y.; Yin, G.; Sheng, L.; Chen, Z.; and Shao, J. 2020. Thinking in frequency: Face forgery detection by mining frequency-aware clues. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 86--103. Springer

    2020

  17. [25]

    Rossler, A.; Cozzolino, D.; Verdoliva, L.; Riess, C.; Thies, J.; and Nie ner, M. 2019. Faceforensics++: Learning to detect manipulated facial images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 1--11

    2019

  18. [26]

    R.; Cogswell, M.; Das, A.; Vedantam, R.; Parikh, D.; and Batra, D

    Selvaraju, R. R.; Cogswell, M.; Das, A.; Vedantam, R.; Parikh, D.; and Batra, D. 2017. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 618--626

    2017

  19. [27]

    Son Chung, J.; Senior, A.; Vinyals, O.; and Zisserman, A. 2017. Lip reading sentences in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6447--6456

    2017

  20. [28]

    Sung, C.-S.; Chen, J.-C.; and Chen, C.-S. 2023. Hearing and seeing abnormality: Self-supervised audio-visual mutual learning for deepfake detection. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 1--5

    2023

  21. [29]

    Tan, C.; Zhao, Y.; Wei, S.; Gu, G.; Liu, P.; and Wei, Y. 2024. Frequency-aware deepfake detection: Improving generalizability through frequency space learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07240

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Todisco, M.; Wang, X.; Vestman, V.; Sahidullah, M.; Delgado, H.; Nautsch, A.; Yamagishi, J.; Evans, N.; Kinnunen, T.; and Lee, K. A. 2019. ASVspoof 2019: Future horizons in spoofed and fake audio detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05441

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wang, C.; and Deng, W. 2021. Representative forgery mining for fake face detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14923--14932

    2021

  24. [32]

    Wang, K.; Wu, Q.; Song, L.; Yang, Z.; Wu, W.; Qian, C.; He, R.; Qiao, Y.; and Loy, C. C. 2020. Mead: A large-scale audio-visual dataset for emotional talking-face generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 700--717. Springer

    2020

  25. [33]

    Wang, R.; Ye, D.; Tang, L.; Zhang, Y.; and Deng, J. 2024. AVT2-DWF: Improving Deepfake Detection with Audio-Visual Fusion and Dynamic Weighting Strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14974

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Yang, W.; Zhou, X.; Chen, Z.; Guo, B.; Ba, Z.; Xia, Z.; Cao, X.; and Ren, K. 2023. Avoid-df: Audio-visual joint learning for detecting deepfake. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 18: 2015--2029

    2023

  27. [35]

    Yang, X.; Zeng, J.; Guo, D.; Wang, S.; Dong, J.; and Wang, M. 2024. Robust Video Question Answering via Contrastive Cross-Modality Representation Learning. SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences, 67: 1--16

    2024

  28. [36]

    Zhang, W.; Cun, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, X.; Guo, Y.; Shan, Y.; and Wang, F. 2023. Sadtalker: Learning realistic 3d motion coefficients for stylized audio-driven single image talking face animation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Zhao, H.; Zhou, W.; Chen, D.; Wei, T.; Zhang, W.; and Yu, N. 2021. Multi-attentional deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2185--2194

    2021

  30. [38]

    Zhong, W.; Fang, C.; Cai, Y.; Wei, P.; Zhao, G.; Lin, L.; and Li, G. 2023. Identity-preserving talking face generation with landmark and appearance priors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9729--9738

    2023

  31. [39]

    Zhou, T.; Wang, W.; Liang, Z.; and Shen, J. 2021. Face forensics in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 5778--5788

    2021

  32. [40]

    Zhou, Y.; and Lim, S.-N. 2021. Joint audio-visual deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 14800--14809

    2021

  33. [41]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  34. [42]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.