Deepfake detection by human crowds, machines, and machine-informed crowds

Matthew Groh, Ziv Epstein, Chaz Firestone, Rosalind W. Picard

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2021 · 197 citations · 78 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

The rise of machine‑manipulated media raises the societal question of how to determine whether a video is real or fake. The study aims to compare human and machine deepfake detection, assess performance across video features, and test randomized interventions on detection accuracy. Two online studies with 15,016 participants presented authentic and deepfake videos for identification, while the authors evaluated human and machine performance across video‑level features and the effects of preregistered randomized interventions. Humans and the leading computer‑vision model achieved comparable accuracy but made different errors; participants aided by model predictions performed better overall, though incorrect model outputs could reduce accuracy; face‑processing disruptions impaired human performance but left the model largely unaffected, highlighting the role of specialized human cognition.

Abstract

The recent emergence of machine-manipulated media raises an important societal question: How can we know whether a video that we watch is real or fake? In two online studies with 15,016 participants, we present authentic videos and deepfakes and ask participants to identify which is which. We compare the performance of ordinary human observers with the leading computer vision deepfake detection model and find them similarly accurate, while making different kinds of mistakes. Together, participants with access to the model's prediction are more accurate than either alone, but inaccurate model predictions often decrease participants' accuracy. To probe the relative strengths and weaknesses of humans and machines as detectors of deepfakes, we examine human and machine performance across video-level features, and we evaluate the impact of preregistered randomized interventions on deepfake detection. We find that manipulations designed to disrupt visual processing of faces hinder human participants' performance while mostly not affecting the model's performance, suggesting a role for specialized cognitive capacities in explaining human deepfake detection performance.

References

78