Papers for

digital security teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Venus-DefakerOne2 detects diverse fake media with broad coverage

Venus-DefakerOne2: A Vision-Forensics Foundation Model with Broader Coverage

Abstract: Real-world forgery is inherently heterogeneous: it manifests not only as digital manipulation but also as physical spoofing, and is carried not only by images but also by videos. Despite substantial progress, a unified anti-forgery foundation model covering such a broad threat spectrum remains absent. In this paper, we present Venus-DefakerOne2, which substantially extends the forensic capability boundary along both the forgery-form and media-type dimensions. Trained on tens of millions of open-source and in-house samples, it incorporates two key designs. Tide-Style-Tuning alternates LoRA and full-parameter fine-tuning to balance computational efficiency, generalization, and hard-sample fitting while mitigating catastrophic forgetting. Entropy-based Test Adaptation determines the optimal prediction modality by analyzing prediction entropy. Venus-DefakerOne2 achieves new state-of-the-art performance across a comprehensive suite of benchmarks, including DeepFake faces (96.7%), AI-generated images (93.3%), tampered documents (87.6%), manipulated natural images (89.6%), physical spoofs (93.1%), and AI-generated videos (96.0%). It significantly outperforms both specialized expert models and its predecessor, DefakerOne, establishing itself as a powerful and versatile foundation model for binary-decision forensic tasks.

Tue 27 OctComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Fake images and videos come in many forms, such as digital edits or physical impersonations, and can appear in photos, videos, and documents. The authors developed Venus-DefakerOne2, a unified system that can spot different types of forgeries across various media. It learns from tens of millions of examples and uses smart tuning methods to perform well on new and tricky cases. This new system outperforms older tools at detecting fake faces, AI-made images, doctored documents, physical spoofs, and deepfake videos. It serves as a versatile tool to help tell real from fake in many forensic settings.
Open → 2610.37918v1

Deep learning models compared for detecting fake facial images

Deep Learning for Deepfake Image Detection: Comparative Model Evaluation and Gradient-Based Visual Attribution

Abstract: Synthetic facial imagery has made the distinction between authentic and generated content increasingly important for digital forensics and online trust. This study examines an explainable deep-learning workflow for image-level deepfake detection using two contrasting classification strategies: a compact convolutional model trained from scratch and an ImageNet-pretrained MobileNetV2 model adapted through two-stage transfer learning. Experiments were conducted with the balanced 140k Real and Fake Faces dataset, comprising 140,000 facial images. Under the recorded validation protocol, the augmented from-scratch model reached 84.15% accuracy (loss 0.3625), compared with 95.90% accuracy (loss 0.1074) for the fine-tuned pretrained model. Gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) was used to visualize image regions associated with predictions, and a Flask-based prototype was developed for side-by-side inspection. These observations support the practical value of pretrained visual representations in the studied setting while underscoring the need to interpret validation performance alongside dataset provenance, explanation limitations, and evaluation scope. The reported results are validation results, not held-out test estimates.

Thu 15 OctComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Distinguishing real faces from digitally faked faces is tough but important for online trust. This paper compares two deep learning methods: one smaller model trained from scratch and a larger model adapted from a general image database. The larger model was more accurate at spotting fakes. The authors used a visualization technique to show which facial areas the models focused on when deciding if an image was fake. They also created a simple tool to look at these explanations side by side.
Open → 2610.22676v1

AI-generated disinformation risks harm across UK society

AI-Generated Disinformation in the UK: Risk of Harm, Context, and Classification

Abstract: More people across the UK are today exposed to more AI-generated and AI-altered disinformation and misinformation than ever before - exposing individuals and society to a growing range of harmful consequences and potential consequences. We analyse evidence from a dataset of 112 pieces of AI-generated or AI-altered disinformation or misinformation seen tens of millions of times across the UK between 1 January 2025 and 31 March 2026. The dataset of examples studied does not, of course, provide an exhaustive sample of all AI-generated false information in circulation in the period, but rather a snapshot of examples showing some, but not all, of the potential effects. Our analysis of this sample found a substantive risk of causing or contributing to harm to individuals and society in eight distinct fields, from contributing to incidents of serious social unrest and vigilante violence to causing direct harms to health and causing the sort of serious financial loss that can be caused by online scams and fraud. Other fields of risk included: abuse serious enough to affect individuals' health and behaviour; public engagement with the police and justice systems; susceptibility to false conspiracy theories with the potential to cause direct harms; and broader changes to social and political attitudes with potential to affect political, social events over the longer term. More than four in five pieces of content we assessed added to reasons for the public to distrust information as not merely inaccurate but substantively false or misleading: a broad disinformation effect with potential for significant effects for society.

Mon 5 OctComputers and Society
The gist
More people in the UK are seeing false or misleading information created or changed by AI, which can cause serious problems. The authors studied 112 examples of this kind of AI-driven false content that spread widely over 15 months. They found the content could lead to harm in areas like health, financial scams, social unrest, and distrust in public institutions. This work highlights how such false information might change people’s attitudes and behavior in harmful ways.
Open → 2610.06084v1

Gaussian parameter method hides data in images with high accuracy

Gaussian Image Steganography via Parameter-Domain Keyed Embeddings

Abstract: 2D Gaussian-based image representation is becoming increasingly popular, and our work proposes a new approach to steganography by embedding information within Gaussian parameters rather than image pixels. We first fit the parameters of this representation to the target image and employ a secret key to select a subset of these parameters for fine-tuning, allowing us to embed an 8-bit message while maintaining high visual fidelity in the reconstructed image. Thirty fitting experiments on three synthetic images show that the correct key can recover the message without error, while decoding with incorrect keys yields a Bit Error Rate (BER) of $0.543$, close to random guessing. Compared with random selection using the key, selecting the least-disturbing edits recovers the message more reliably (one-sided $p=0.031$), and the average PSNR cost is only $0.091$ dB in visual quality. The embedding method transfers to 112 natural images at $256\times256$ using 4,096 Gaussians. The correct-key BER is $0.000$, and decoding under a wrong key stays close to random guessing at $0.520$. Our method embeds the payload through three Gaussian parameter types: log-anisotropy, opacity, and color luminance. In a separate nine-fit reduced setting, color luminance is removed, so the payload uses two instead of three parameter types, a $33.3\%$ reduction; all 256 Gaussians remain in the fitted representation. The correct key still recovers the message without error. However, wrong-key BER rises from $0.514$ to $0.571$, moving farther from random guessing ($0.5$).

Sat 26 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionGraphics
The gist
Steganography is about hiding secret messages inside images so others don't notice. This work shows a new way to hide information by changing the way images are described using Gaussian shapes instead of changing individual pixels. The secret message can be perfectly recovered with the right key, and impossible to decode correctly with the wrong key, keeping the image looking almost the same. They tested this on both simple and natural images, showing it works well across different cases.
Open → 2609.32131v1