Metamorphic Testing-based Adversarial Attack to Fool Deepfake Detectors
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deepfakes utilise Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques to create synthetic media where the likeness of one person is replaced with another. There are growing concerns that deepfakes can be maliciously used to create misleading and harmful digital contents. As deepfakes become more common, there is a dire need for deepfake detection technology to help spot deepfake media. Present deepfake detection models are able to achieve outstanding accuracy (>90%). However, most of them are limited to within-dataset scenario, where the same dataset is used for training and testing. Most models do not generalise well enough in cross-dataset scenario, where models are tested on unseen datasets from another source. Furthermore, state-of-the-art deepfake detection models rely on neural network-based classification models that are known to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks. Motivated by the need for a robust deepfake detection model, this study adapts metamorphic testing (MT) principles to help identify potential factors that could influence the robustness of the examined model, while overcoming the test oracle problem in this domain. Metamorphic testing is specifically chosen as the testing technique as it fits our demand to address learning-based system testing with probabilistic outcomes from largely black-box components, based on potentially large input domains. We performed our evaluations on MesoInception-4 and TwoStreamNet models, which are the state-of-the-art deepfake detection models. This study identified makeup application as an adversarial attack that could fool deepfake detectors. Our experimental results demonstrate that both the MesoInception-4 and TwoStreamNet models degrade in their performance by up to 30% when the input data is perturbed with makeup.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Apr 2022.
Builds on
14 of 28 references.
References · 14
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2019FaceForensics++: Learning to Detect Manipulated Facial Imagescited by 1,095
- 2020Face2Face: Real-time Face Capture and Reenactment of RGB Videoscited by 631
- 2017One pixel attack for fooling deep neural networkscited by 579
- 2018MesoNet: a Compact Facial Video Forgery Detection Networkcited by 409
- 2018Exposing DeepFake Videos By Detecting Face Warping Artifactscited by 318
- 2021Generalizing Face Forgery Detection with High-frequency Featurescited by 261
- 2020DeepFakes and Beyond: A Survey of Face Manipulation and Fake Detectioncited by 231
- 2020Adversarial Deepfakes: Evaluating Vulnerability of Deepfake Detectors to Adversarial Examplescited by 66
- 2020Adversarial Threats to DeepFake Detection: A Practical Perspectivecited by 48
- 2021Exploring Adversarial Robustness of Multi-Sensor Perception Systems in Self Drivingcited by 45
- 2021An Examination of Fairness of AI Models for Deepfake Detectioncited by 34
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.
2 papers.