Authors: Tianyi Wang, Xi Shao, Harry Cheng, Yinglong Wang, Mohan Kankanhalli
Organizations: National University of Singapore · Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences)
Current temporal forgery localization (TFL) approaches typically rely on temporal boundary regression or continuous frame-level anomaly detection paradigms to derive candidate forgery proposals. However, they suffer not only from feature granularity misalignment but also from costly computation. To address these issues, we propose word-anchored temporal forgery localization (WAFL), a novel paradigm that shifts the TFL task from temporal regression and continuous localization to discrete word-level binary classification. Specifically, we first analyze the essence of temporal forgeries and identify the minimum meaningful forgery units, word tokens, and then align data preprocessing with the natural linguistic boundaries of speech. To adapt powerful pre-trained foundation backbones for feature extraction, we introduce the forensic feature realignment (FFR) module, mapping representations from the pre-trained semantic space to a discriminative forensic manifold. This allows subsequent lightweight linear classifiers to efficiently perform binary classification and accomplish the TFL task. Furthermore, to overcome the extreme class imbalance inherent to forgery detection, we design the artifact-centric asymmetric (ACA) loss, which breaks the standard precision-recall trade-off by dynamically suppressing overwhelming authentic gradients while asymmetrically prioritizing subtle forensic artifacts. Extensive experiments demonstrate that WAFL significantly outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in localization performance under both in- and cross-dataset settings, while requiring substantially fewer learnable parameters and operating at high computational efficiency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Demonstration of the proposed new paradigm compared to current state-of-the-art approaches.
Figure 2: Workflow of the proposed framework for temporal forgery localization.
Table 1: Temporal forgery localization performance (%) on LAV-DF under in-dataset setting. Best and second-best performance marked in bold and underline .
Table 2: Temporal forgery localization performance (%) on AV-Deepfake1M under in-dataset setting. Best and second-best performance marked in bold and underline .
Method
Visual Encoder
Audio Encoder
Localization
Full Workflow
All
Learnable
All
Learnable
All
Learnable
All
Learnable
BA-TFD [ 5 ]
2.32 M
2.32 M
0.08 M
0.08 M
3.10 M
3.10 M
5.50 M
5.50 M
BA-TFD+ [ 4 ]
47.43 M
47.43 M
85.84 M
85.84 M
19.62 M
19.62 M
152.89 M
152.89 M
UMMAFormer [ 31 ]
47.04 M
–
5.32 M
–
49.72 M
49.72 M
102.08 M
49.72 M
MDP [ 27 ]
23.51 M
–
317.39 M
–
13.65 M
13.65 M
354.55 M
13.65 M
DiMoDif [ 12 ]
250.38 M
–
243.05 M
–
6.98 M
6.98 M
500.41 M
6.98 M
Table 3: Efficiency comparison between different TFL approaches and paradigms for different modules, categorized by ‘all’ and ‘learnable’ parameters.
Table 4: Temporal forgery localization performance (%) on LAV-DF under cross-dataset setting. Best and second-best performance are in bold and underlined .