Papers for

video 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.

Deepfake detection improves with pulse and face movement analysis

Beyond Ambiguous Visual Cues: Studying Physiological Disruptions and Cross-Modal Inconsistencies in Deepfake Videos

Abstract: Recent deepfake detection studies increasingly suggest remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) signals as an authenticity cue. However, existing benchmarks lack physiological ground truth, and current detectors underexplore the cross-level relationship between facial features and physiological dynamics, often relying on late fusion or rPPG features alone. In this paper, we construct high-fidelity deepfake manipulations on established real rPPG datasets (COHFACE and UBFC-rPPG) to investigate how forgeries disrupt natural physiological signals and facial behavior at the same time. Building on this analysis, we propose a bidirectional co-attention fusion detector that jointly models rPPG and facial behavior tokens. This mechanism explicitly captures the cross-level dependencies between pulse dynamics and facial motion to learn a robust, joint authenticity representation. Extensive experiments using a subject-disjoint 5-fold evaluation demonstrate the superiority of our approach. Achieving a 92.80\% AUC on constructed datasets using face swapping and 96.78\% AUC on motion transfer, our model outperforms both the rPPG-only single modality baseline and the best feature-level fusion methods. Furthermore, transfer-learning result of the fusion detector on Celeb-DF-v2 while keeping both feature extractors fixed achieves 91.20\% accuracy and 86.08\% AUC, which suggests applicability under target-domain adaptation.

Fri 11 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Deepfake videos are fake videos often created by swapping or changing faces in videos. The authors show that these fake videos disrupt natural body signals like heartbeats seen in face color changes. They created a method that looks at both the heartbeat signals and facial movements together to better spot fakes. Their approach performs better than methods looking at just one of these signs and works well even on new datasets.
Open 2609.12668v1

AI generated videos become almost impossible to detect by humans or tools

DF26: We Cannot Tell Fake From Real Anymore

Abstract: We introduce DF26, a novel benchmark for detecting AI-generated videos containing fully synthetic clips produced by recent text-to-video and image-to-video models. The videos capture single-person public-speaking scenarios, spanning direct-to-camera recordings, official statements, and studio interviews - 271 real and 2,420 synthetic videos generated by seven modern video models. The study on DF26 shows that human performance in detecting AI-generated videos, as well as state-of-the-art deepfake detectors, is close to random chance. Our results highlight the limitations of current evaluation protocols and motivate the need for benchmarks that explicitly measure robustness to modern generative model distribution shifts.

Mon 7 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
People find it nearly impossible to tell if certain videos of someone speaking on camera are real or made by AI. The authors created DF26, a set of videos including hundreds of real clips and thousands made by different AI models, to test detection skills. Both humans and the latest fake video detectors performed no better than guessing. This shows current methods to find fake videos are not reliable anymore with newer AI-generated media.
Open 2609.07369v1