mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Exposing Deepfake with Pixel-wise AR and PPG Correlation from Faint Signals

arXiv 2110.15561 ↗First posted 29 Oct 2021cs.CV eess.IVcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Deepfake poses a serious threat to the reliability of judicial evidence and intellectual property protection. In spite of an urgent need for Deepfake identification, existing pixel-level detection methods are increasingly unable to resist the growing realism of fake videos and lack generalization. In this paper, we propose a scheme to expose Deepfake through faint signals hidden in face videos. This scheme extracts two types of minute information hidden between face pixels-photoplethysmography (PPG) features and auto-regressive (AR) features, which are used as the basis for forensics in the temporal and spatial domains, respectively. According to the principle of PPG, tracking the absorption of light by blood cells allows remote estimation of the temporal domains heart rate (HR) of face video, and irregular HR fluctuations can be seen as traces of tampering. On the other hand, AR coefficients are able to reflect the inter-pixel correlation, and can also reflect the traces of smoothing caused by up-sampling in the process of generating fake faces. Furthermore, the scheme combines asymmetric convolution block (ACBlock)-based improved densely connected networks (DenseNets) to achieve face video authenticity forensics. Its asymmetric convolutional structure enhances the robustness of network to the input feature image upside-down and left-right flipping, so that the sequence of feature stitching does not affect detection results. Simulation results show that our proposed scheme provides more accurate authenticity detection results on multiple deep forgery datasets and has better generalization compared to the benchmark strategy.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Oct 2021.

Builds on

16 of 28 references.

References · 16

  1. 2019FaceForensics++: Learning to Detect Manipulated Facial Imagescited by 1,101
  2. 2019CNN-generated images are surprisingly easy to spot... for nowcited by 847
  3. 2014Long-term Recurrent Convolutional Networks for Visual Recognition and Descriptioncited by 484
  4. 2019Face X-ray for More General Face Forgery Detectioncited by 470
  5. 2018MesoNet: a Compact Facial Video Forgery Detection Networkcited by 409
  6. 2018Exposing Deep Fakes Using Inconsistent Head Posescited by 297
  7. 2020Watch your Up-Convolution: CNN Based Generative Deep Neural Networks are Failing to Reproduce Spectral Distributionscited by 280
  8. 2019On the Detection of Digital Face Manipulationcited by 260
  9. 2020Global Texture Enhancement for Fake Face Detection in the Wildcited by 220
  10. 2018DeepFakes: a New Threat to Face Recognition? Assessment and Detectioncited by 209
  11. 2018Learning Deep Models for Face Anti-Spoofing: Binary or Auxiliary Supervisioncited by 167
  12. 2019FakeCatcher: Detection of Synthetic Portrait Videos using Biological Signalscited by 145
4 more
  1. 2020Single-Side Domain Generalization for Face Anti-Spoofingcited by 139
  2. 2019Recurrent Convolutional Strategies for Face Manipulation Detection in Videoscited by 118
  3. 2019Deep Learning for Deepfakes Creation and Detection: A Surveycited by 102
  4. 2020How Do the Hearts of Deep Fakes Beat? Deep Fake Source Detection via Interpreting Residuals with Biological Signalscited by 29

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

3 papers.