Beyond Seeing Is Believing: On Crowdsourced Detection of Audiovisual Deepfakes
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deepfakes are increasingly realistic and easy to produce, raising concerns about the reliability of human judgments in misinformation settings. We study audiovisual deepfake detection by measuring how consistently crowd workers distinguish authentic from manipulated videos and, when they flag a video as manipulated, how accurately they identify the manipulation type (audio-only, video-only, or audio-video) and how consistently they report manipulation timestamps. We run two matched crowdsourcing studies on Prolific using AV-Deepfake1M and the Trusted Media Challenge (TMC) dataset. We sample 48 videos per dataset (96 total) and collect 960 judgments (10 per video). Results show that crowd workers rarely misclassify authentic videos as manipulated, but they miss many manipulations, and agreement remains limited across videos. Aggregating multiple judgments per video stabilizes the authenticity signal, but it cannot recover manipulations that most workers consistently miss. Manipulation type identification is substantially noisier than authenticity detection even when workers detect a manipulation, with joint audio-video cases being particularly hard to recognize. Overall, these findings suggest that crowdsourcing can provide a scalable screening signal for audiovisual authenticity, while reliable modality attribution remains an open challenge.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 79 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 May 2026.
Builds on
25 of 79 references.
References · 25
- 2024WorldSimBench: Towards Video Generation Models as World Simulatorscited by 867
- 2020DeeperForensics-1.0: A Large-Scale Dataset for Real-World Face Forgery Detectioncited by 251
- 2020DeepFakes and Beyond: A Survey of Face Manipulation and Fake Detectioncited by 231
- 2020Media Forensics and DeepFakes: an overviewcited by 208
- 2021FakeAVCeleb: A Novel Audio-Video Multimodal Deepfake Datasetcited by 179
- 2021ForgeryNet: A Versatile Benchmark for Comprehensive Forgery Analysiscited by 124
- 2021KoDF: A Large-scale Korean DeepFake Detection Datasetcited by 80
- 2023AV-Deepfake1M: A Large-Scale LLM-Driven Audio-Visual Deepfake Datasetcited by 79
- 2021Deepfake Detection by Human Crowds, Machines, and Machine-informed Crowdscited by 58
- 2022Deepfake Detection: A Comprehensive Survey from the Reliability Perspectivecited by 48
- 2025Deepfake-Eval-2024: A Multi-Modal In-the-Wild Benchmark of Deepfakes Circulated in 2024cited by 40
- 2022On Improving Cross-dataset Generalization of Deepfake Detectorscited by 34
13 more
- 2024As Good As A Coin Toss: Human detection of AI-generated images, videos, audio, and audiovisual stimulicited by 22
- 2022Human Detection of Political Speech Deepfakes across Transcripts, Audio, and Videocited by 16
- 2024PolyGlotFake: A Novel Multilingual and Multimodal DeepFake Datasetcited by 16
- 2020Deepfake detection: humans vs. machinescited by 14
- 2020Can The Crowd Identify Misinformation Objectively? The Effects of Judgment Scale and Assessor's Backgroundcited by 9
- 2025MAVOS-DD: Multilingual Audio-Video Open-Set Deepfake Detection Benchmarkcited by 9
- 2022Trusted Media Challenge Dataset and User Studycited by 7
- 2023A Survey on the Role of Crowds in Combating Online Misinformation: Annotators, Evaluators, and Creatorscited by 6
- 2020The COVID-19 Infodemic: Can the Crowd Judge Recent Misinformation Objectively?cited by 5
- 2021The Many Dimensions of Truthfulness: Crowdsourcing Misinformation Assessments on a Multidimensional Scalecited by 5
- 2021Can the Crowd Judge Truthfulness? A Longitudinal Study on Recent Misinformation about COVID-19cited by 2
- 2025Efficiency and Effectiveness of LLM-Based Summarization of Evidence in Crowdsourced Fact-Checkingcited by 2
- 2023Estimation of the qualification and behavior of a contributor and aggregation of his answers in a crowdsourcing contextcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.