Benchmarking Spatial, Spectral, and Self-Supervised Cues for Face Forgery Detection under Realistic Degradation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Face forgery detectors often achieve strong results on controlled benchmarks, but their reliability under realistic image degradations remains limited. This paper presents a standardized benchmark for face forgery detection using the Multi-Dimensional Face Forgery Image (MFFI) dataset and evaluates performance on both clean and degraded test partitions. We compare six model families, including convolutional networks, transformer-based models, and a frozen self-supervised DINOv3 backbone, across spatial, spectral, and hybrid input representations. The results show that clean-set performance is not a reliable indicator of robustness under compression, resizing, and blurring. Xception with RGB obtains the best clean performance, reaching 0.884 mean ROC-AUC, but degrades substantially on the harder partition. In contrast, frozen DINOv3 achieves the strongest degraded-set result, with 0.726 mean ROC-AUC, while training only a linear classification head. The representation analysis indicates that Fourier-domain cues are most useful when combined with RGB information, whereas purely spectral inputs consistently underperform spatial representations. Qualitative attribution maps further suggest that convolutional detectors focus on localized artifacts, while DINOv3 relies on broader facial structure. These findings reinforce the need for degraded evaluation protocols and highlight self-supervised visual representations as a promising direction for robust face forgery detection. Our source code is publicly available at https://github.com/lucasdocunha/FaceForgery-Benchmark/.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.
Builds on
24 of 31 references.
References · 24
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
- 2022Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 5,627
- 2016Xception: Deep Learning with Depthwise Separable Convolutionscited by 2,332
- 2019Searching for MobileNetV3cited by 1,994
- 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,432
- 2025DINOv3cited by 1,414
- 2019FaceForensics++: Learning to Detect Manipulated Facial Imagescited by 1,101
- 2019CNN-generated images are surprisingly easy to spot... for nowcited by 847
12 more
- 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 775
- 2019Celeb-DF: A Large-scale Challenging Dataset for DeepFake Forensicscited by 575
- 2020Thinking in Frequency: Face Forgery Detection by Mining Frequency-aware Cluescited by 523
- 2020Leveraging Frequency Analysis for Deep Fake Image Recognitioncited by 504
- 2019Fourier Spectrum Discrepancies in Deep Network Generated Imagescited by 139
- 2024Detecting Multimedia Generated by Large AI Models: A Surveycited by 76
- 2026Venus-DeFakerOne: Unified Fake Image Detection & Localizationcited by 8
- 2023On the Vulnerability of DeepFake Detectors to Attacks Generated by Denoising Diffusion Modelscited by 6
- 2025MFFI: Multi-Dimensional Face Forgery Image Dataset for Real-World Scenarioscited by 3
- 2026Al'em do Desempenho: Um Estudo da Confiabilidade de Detectores de Deepfakescited by 1
- 2026LOGER: Local--Global Ensemble for Robust Deepfake Detection in the Wildcited by 1
- 2026Robust Face Super-Resolution and Recognition Through Multi-Feature Aggregation in Diffusion Modelscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.