skip to main content
10.1145/3267357.3267367acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Detecting Both Machine and Human Created Fake Face Images In the Wild

Published:15 January 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Due to the significant advancements in image processing and machine learning algorithms, it is much easier to create, edit, and produce high quality images. However, attackers can maliciously use these tools to create legitimate looking but fake images to harm others, bypass image detection algorithms, or fool image recognition classifiers. In this work, we propose neural network based classifiers to detect fake human faces created by both 1) machines and 2) humans. We use ensemble methods to detect GANs-created fake images and employ pre-processing techniques to improve fake face image detection created by humans. Our approaches focus on image contents for classification and do not use meta-data of images. Our preliminary results show that we can effectively detect both GANs-created images, and human-created fake images with 94% and 74.9% AUROC score.

References

  1. Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 785--794. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Fran¸cois Chollet. 2017. Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02357 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Fran¸cois Chollet et al. 2015. Keras. https://keras.io.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jon Christian. 2018. Experts fear face swapping tech could start an international showdown. Retrieved July 5, 2018 from https://theoutline.com/post/3179/ deepfake-videos-are-freaking-experts-outGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Hyoungseok Chu. 2017. AUROC. Retrieved Jun 25, 2018 from https://github.com/hyoungseokchu/AUROCGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Samantha Cole. 2018. We Are Truly Fucked: Everyone Is Making AI-Generated Fake Porn Now. Vice (25 Jan 2018). https://motherboard.vice.com/en us/article/bjye8a/ reddit-fake-porn-app-daisy-ridleyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Davide Cozzolino, Giovanni Poggi, and Luisa Verdoliva. 2017. Recasting residual-based local descriptors as convolutional neural networks: an application to image forgery detection. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security. ACM, 159--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Iv´an de Paz Centeno. 2018. MTCNN. Retrieved Jun 25, 2018 from https://github.com/ipazc/mtcnnGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Hany Farid. 2009. Exposing digital forgeries from JPEG ghosts. IEEE Trans. Information Forensics and Security 4, 1 (2009), 154--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Mohammad Farukh Hashmi, Aaditya R Hambarde, and Avinash G Keskar. 2013. Copy move forgery detection using DWT and SIFT features. In Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA), 2013 13th International Conference on. IEEE, 188--193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 770--778.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. Densely Connected Convolutional Networks. In CVPR '17, Vol. 1. 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Multimedia Computing Lab in Kaist. 2015. MMC Image Forensic Tool. Retrieved July 22, 2018 from http://forensic.kaist.ac.kr/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tero Karras, Timo Aila, Samuli Laine, and Jaakko Lehtinen. 2017. Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10196 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. A. Kashyap, B. Suresh, M. Agrawal, H. Gupta, and S. D. Joshi. 2015. Detection of splicing forgery using wavelet decomposition. In International Conference on Computing, Communication Automation. 843--848.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis E King. 2009. Dlib-ml: A machine learning toolkit. Journal of Machine Learning Research 10 (July 2009), 1755--1758. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Neal Krawetz. 2007. A Picture's Worth: Digital Image Analysis and Forensics. Hacker Factor Solutions (2007), 16--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Neal Krawetz. 2012. FotoForensics. Retrieved July 5, 2018 from http://fotoforensics.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Zhouchen Lin, Junfeng He, Xiaoou Tang, and Chi-Keung Tang. 2009. Fast, automatic and fine-grained tampered JPEG image detection via DCT coefficient analysis. Pattern Recognition 42, 11 (2009), 2492--2501. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. Murali, Govindraj B. Chittapur, H. S. Prabhakara, and Basavaraj S. Anami. 2013. Comparision and analysis of photo image forgery detection techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1302.3119 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. 2018. YOLOv3: An Incremental Improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02767 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Aja Romano. 2018. Jordan Peele's simulated Obama PSA is a double-edged warning against fake news. Retrieved August 15, 2018 from https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17252410/ jordan-peele-obama-deepfake-buzzfeedGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kevin Roose. 2018. Here Come the Fake Videos, Too. Retrieved July 5, 2018 from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/ technology/fake-videos-deepfakes.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Andreas R¨ossler, Davide Cozzolino, Luisa Verdoliva, Christian Riess, Justus Thies, and Matthias Nießner. 2018. FaceForensics: A Large-scale Video Dataset for Forgery Detection in Human Faces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09179 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. seetaface. 2016. SeetaFaceEngine. Retrieved Jun 25, 2018 from https://github.com/seetaface/SeetaFaceEngineGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2014. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Justus Thies, Michael Zollhofer, Marc Stamminger, Christian Theobalt, and Matthias Nießner. 2016. Face2face: Real-time face capture and reenactment of rgb videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2387--2395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Wikipedia. 2018. Deepfake. Retrieved July 5, 2018 from https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepfakeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jianquan Yang, Guopu Zhu, Jiwu Huang, and Xi Zhao. 2015. Estimating JPEG compression history of bitmaps based on factor histogram. Digital Signal Processing 41 (2015), 90--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Saber Zerdoumi, Aznul Qalid Md Sabri, Amirrudin Kamsin, Ibrahim Abaker Targio Hashem, Abdullah Gani, Saqib Hakak, Mohammed Ali Al-Garadi, and Victor Chang. 2017. Image pattern recognition in big data: taxonomy and open challenges: survey. Multimedia Tools and Applications (2017), 1--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Kaipeng Zhang, Zhanpeng Zhang, Zhifeng Li, and Yu Qiao. 2016. Joint Face Detection and Alignment using Multi-task Cascaded Convolutional Networks. arXiv prerpint arXiv:1604.02878 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Peng Zhou, Xintong Han, Vlad I. Morariu, and Larry S. Davis. 2018. Learning Rich Features for Image Manipulation Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04953 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Xiaogang Wang Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo and Xiaoou Tang. 2015. Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wild. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV '15). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V. Le. 2017. Learning Transferable Architectures for Scalable Image Recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07012 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Detecting Both Machine and Human Created Fake Face Images In the Wild

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      MPS '18: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Multimedia Privacy and Security
      October 2018
      110 pages
      ISBN:9781450359887
      DOI:10.1145/3267357

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 January 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      MPS '18 Paper Acceptance Rate2of4submissions,50%Overall Acceptance Rate5of11submissions,45%

      Upcoming Conference

      CCS '24
      ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 14 - 18, 2024
      Salt Lake City , UT , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader