Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Danil Davydov

Publications and source records attributed to Danil Davydov.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Camera-Noise Residuals for Face-Swap Detection: Redundant, Not Complementary, and Why

Fusing a learned camera-noise fingerprint with an RGB appearance backbone is an appealing route to generator-independent deepfake detection, because the noise residual is grounded in image-formation physics rather than in the texture statistics of a particular generator. We test, on FaceForensics++, whether a Noiseprint++ residual channel carries information \emph{complementary} to an RGB Xception backbone for face-swap detection. A three-model ablation (RGB-only, residual-only, late-fusion) shows that fusion does not improve over RGB alone and that the residual branch alone is near chance. A seven-level bottleneck diagnostic localizes the cause: the noise maps do carry a discriminative signal, but it is statistical---carried by the per-sample first and second moments (mean, variance, energy) of the residual---and the per-sample \texttt{InstanceNorm} layer placed at the noise-branch input, following the TruFor template, standardizes exactly those moments away (five-fold cross-validated AUC drops from $0.747$ to $0.554$). A context-crop control rules out cropping geometry, and two fixed-fusion variants that remove the bottleneck recover the statistical signal yet still fail to beat RGB on every dataset. We conclude that, on this manipulation distribution, the noise residual is redundant with RGB rather than complementary, and we give concrete guidance for practitioners adopting noise-residual fusion for face-swap detection.

cs.LG↗

Does an Illumination Prior Help Face-Swap Detection? A Controlled Study of Temporal Self-Blended Images

Self-blended images are widely used to train face-swap detectors, but primarily capture blending artifacts. We investigate whether adding illumination inconsistencies improves detection. Temporal Self-Blended Images (T-SBI) transfer lighting statistics between frames of the same video, with the mismatch controlled by luminance difference (ΔL). Using five training regimes and a three-seed comparison of high- and low-ΔL training, we find no evidence of illumination-specific improvements. AUC differences remain within seed variability across four datasets, and an analysis of 506,328 attribute-binned samples shows no preferential reduction in errors under harsh lighting. Instead, T-SBI shifts prediction scores, changing optimal thresholds by approximately 0.34 on FaceForensics++ and 0.30 on Celeb-DF, making comparisons at a fixed threshold misleading. However, T-SBI improves robustness to heavy JPEG compression on DFDC (AUC 0.780 versus 0.696), potentially reflecting greater reliance on low-frequency cues. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating training methods against their intended targets and accounting for threshold effects.

cs.LG↗