FairReL: Deepfake Detection using Fairness-Aware Representation Learning
Organizations: Department of Computer Science University of Warwick Coventry, United Kingdom · School of Computer Science University of Birmingham Birmingham, United Kingdom
Abstract
Although recent deepfake detectors achieve high overall accuracy, their errors remain unevenly distributed across demographic subgroups, with real faces from certain groups more often misclassified as fake. Existing fairness-aware detectors typically regularise the entire feature representation, without identifying or controlling the specific components that drive unfair predictions. Such coarse intervention can over-suppress useful forgery cues while leaving demographic structure in component-specific subspaces. To address this, we identify two subgroup-sensitive components: multi-scale spatial features, which encode local facial and forgery patterns, and fine-tuning-induced residual features, which adapt the backbone to the unfair training distribution. We propose FairReL, a fairness-aware representation-learning framework that targets both components with dedicated demographic supervision. FairReL uses an SVD-decomposed foundation-model backbone to isolate the fine-tuning-induced residual representation, and introduces two complementary losses. Group-Conditional Wavelet Decorrelation (GCWD) suppresses subgroup-imbalanced structure across spatial wavelet sub-bands, while Subspace-Localised Mean Alignment (SLMA) aligns subgroup means within each real/fake class in the residual representation. Experiments on FF++, Celeb-DF, DFD and DFDC show that, against the state-of-the-art fairness-aware detector, FairReL improves unseen-dataset AUC by 3.9% while reducing subgroup FPR disparity by 10.2%. Code is available at https://github.com/xiaoman89/FairReL .
Figures & tables
| Type | Method | Backbone | Celeb-DF | DFD | DFDC | |||||||||
| Detection (%) | Fairness (%) | Detection (%) | Fairness (%) | Detection (%) | Fairness (%) | |||||||||
| AUC | AUC | AUC | AUC | AUC | AUC | |||||||||
| ERM | Xception Chollet (2017) | Xception | 70.94 | 70.75 | 25.43 | 16.81 | 76.73 | 76.57 | 29.20 | 18.11 | 60.58 | 60.45 | 48.89 | 37.15 |
| CLIP-ERM Radford et al. (2021) | CLIP | 74.37 | 74.26 | 23.25 | 15.71 | 81.14 | 81.06 | 31.54 | 20.69 | 62.35 | 62.30 | 51.15 | 39.46 | |
| Gen. | ForAda Cui et al. (2025) | CLIP | 80.21 | 80.26 | 20.35 | 12.75 | 85.50 | 85.53 | 27.41 | 23.46 | 64.82 | 64.87 | 49.70 | 38.61 |
| Effort Yan et al. (2025) | CLIP | 78.52 | 78.58 | 19.61 | 13.44 | 84.22 | 84.26 | 19.37 | 15.08 | 65.08 | 65.14 | 52.04 | 40.31 | |
| Per-subgroup AUC (%) | Overall (%) | |||||||||
| Type | Method | M-W | M-A | M-B | F-W | F-A | F-B | AUC | AUC | AUC gap |
| ERM | Xception Chollet (2017) | 61.06 | 60.69 | 60.28 | 61.56 | 59.78 | 59.34 | 60.58 | 60.45 | 2.22 |
| CLIP-ERM Radford et al. (2021) | 62.87 | 62.53 | 62.14 | 63.34 | 61.67 | 61.26 | 62.35 | 62.30 | 2.08 | |
| Gen. | ForAda Cui et al. (2025) | 65.38 | 65.07 | 64.73 | 65.80 | 64.31 | 63.94 | 64.82 | 64.87 | 1.86 |
| Effort Yan et al. (2025) | 65.64 | 65.34 | 65.00 | 66.06 | 64.59 | 64.22 | 65.08 | 65.14 | 1.84 | |
| GenD Yermakov et al. (2026) | 67.93 | 67.19 | 66.59 | 67.86 | 65.91 | 65.77 | 66.85 | 66.88 | 2.16 | |
| FF++ | Celeb-DF | DFD | DFDC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variant | AUC | AUC | AUC | AUC | ||||
| w/o subspace decomposition | 95.37 | 12.83 | 79.12 | 11.87 | 84.91 | 15.26 | 64.79 | 40.47 |
| FairReL (w/ decomposition) | 96.14 | 10.97 | 80.64 | 10.12 | 86.13 | 13.55 | 66.34 | 38.36 |
| Variant | Setting | FF++ | Celeb-DF | DFD | DFDC | ||||||
| GCWD | SLMA | Cond. | AUC | AUC | AUC | AUC | |||||
| SVD baseline Yan et al. (2025) | – | – | – | 94.83 | 14.57 | 78.52 | 19.61 | 84.22 | 19.37 | 65.08 | 52.04 |
| GCWD only | ✓ | – | – | 95.34 | 12.68 | 79.43 | 14.87 | 85.04 | 16.37 | 65.43 | 44.76 |
| SLMA only | – | ✓ | 95.12 | 13.04 | 79.08 | 15.31 | 84.77 | 16.83 | 65.24 | 45.58 | |
| GCWD + SLMA on | ✓ | ✓ | 95.62 | 11.88 | 79.73 | 12.39 | 85.24 | 15.12 | 65.72 | 41.19 | |
| GCWD + SLMA on | ✓ | – | 93.18 | 11.43 | 77.28 | 11.64 | 83.03 | 14.37 | 62.54 | 40.08 | |
| Celeb-DF | DFD | DFDC | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method on the same backbone | AUC | AUC | AUC | ||||||
| Subspace-decomposed baseline Yan et al. (2025) | 78.52 | 19.61 | 13.44 | 84.22 | 19.37 | 15.08 | 65.08 | 52.04 | 40.31 |
| + prediction-level fairness loss Madras et al. (2018) | 78.43 | 18.92 | 13.08 | 84.11 | 18.57 | 14.73 | 64.91 | 50.82 | 39.58 |
| + adversarial classifier (GRL) Ganin et al. (2016) ; Zhang et al. (2018) | 77.88 | 18.23 | 12.64 | 83.62 | 18.08 | 14.12 | 64.23 | 49.71 | 38.87 |
| + full-feature mean alignment | 78.82 | 18.03 | 12.38 | 84.43 | 17.82 | 13.76 | 66.02 | 49.24 | 38.41 |
| FairReL (Ours) | 80.64 | 10.12 | 7.03 | 86.13 | 13.55 | 8.98 | 66.34 | 38.36 | 30.02 |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Dataset | Train | Val. | Test | Dataset role | Retained intersectional attributes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF++ R”ossler et al. (2019) | 45,377 | 15,126 | 15,126 | Source domain | M-A, M-W, M-B, F-A, F-W, F-B |
| Celeb-DF Li et al. (2020b) | – | – | 87,213 | Unseen target | M-W, M-B, F-W, F-B |
| DFD Dufour and Gully (2019) | – | – | 20,032 | Unseen target | M-W, M-B, F-W, F-B |
| DFDC Dolhansky et al. (2020) | – | – | 63,225 | Unseen target | M-A, M-W, M-B, F-A, F-W, F-B |
| Dataset | M-A | M-W | M-B | F-A | F-W | F-B | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF++ R”ossler et al. (2019) | 2,475 | 31,281 | 1,468 | 8,013 | 31,281 | 1,111 | 75,629 |
| Celeb-DF Li et al. (2020b) | – | 81,194 | 600 | – | 5,389 | 30 | 87,213 |
| DFD Dufour and Gully (2019) | – | 7,784 | 6,482 | – | 4,127 | 1,639 | 20,032 |
| DFDC Dolhansky et al. (2020) | 2,144 | 21,755 | 9,603 | 1,915 | 18,502 | 9,306 | 63,225 |
| Type | Method | Backbone | Req. Demo | FF++ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | AUC | ||||||
| ERM | Xception-ERM Chollet (2017) | Xception | No | 88.50 | 88.46 | 16.84 | 12.07 |
| CLIP-ERM Radford et al. (2021) | CLIP ViT-L/14 | No | 92.40 | 92.44 | 15.92 | 11.38 | |
| Gen. | ForAda Cui et al. (2025) | CLIP ViT-L/14 | No | 94.10 | 94.21 | 15.13 | 10.86 |
| Effort Yan et al. (2025) | CLIP ViT-L/14 | No | 94.83 | 94.92 | 14.57 | 10.41 | |
| GenD Yermakov et al. (2026) | CLIP ViT-L/14 | No | 95.35 | 95.48 | 14.06 | 10.02 | |
| Detection | Fairness | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset | AUC | AUC | ||
| FF++ (intra) | ||||
| Celeb-DF | ||||
| DFD | ||||
| DFDC | ||||
| Celeb-DF | DFD | DFDC | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | TPR | BalAcc. | TPR | BalAcc. | TPR | BalAcc. |
| Effort Yan et al. (2025) | 71.4 | 64.7 | 80.6 | 71.5 | 60.5 | 58.4 |
| FairReL (Ours) | 74.9 | 69.6 | 83.2 | 76.7 | 62.5 | 62.8 |
| Per-subgroup AUC (%) | Overall (%) | ||||||||||
| Data | Type | Method | M-W | M-A | M-B | F-W | F-A | F-B | AUC | AUC | gap |
| FF++ | ERM | Xception-ERM Chollet (2017) | 89.73 | 88.73 | 87.68 | 89.15 | 88.26 | 87.18 | 88.50 | 88.46 | 2.55 |
| CLIP-ERM Radford et al. (2021) | 93.64 | 92.70 | 91.71 | 93.09 | 92.25 | 91.24 | 92.40 | 92.44 | 2.40 | ||
| Gen. | ForAda Cui et al. (2025) | 95.26 | 94.43 | 93.57 | 94.78 | 94.04 | 93.16 | 94.10 | 94.21 | 2.10 | |
| Effort Yan et al. (2025) | 95.90 | 95.13 | 94.32 | 95.45 | 94.76 | 93.94 | 94.83 | 94.92 | 1.96 | ||
| GenD Yermakov et al. (2026) | 96.38 | 95.67 | 94.93 | 95.97 | 95.33 | 94.57 | 95.35 | 95.48 | 1.81 | ||
| Celeb-DF | DFD | DFDC | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | AUC | AUC | ||||
| 77.85 | 12.64 | 84.71 | 15.83 | 63.74 | 41.92 | |
| 79.48 | 11.21 | 85.62 | 14.58 | 64.93 | 39.86 | |
| ( ours ) | 80.64 | 10.12 | 86.13 | 13.55 | 66.34 | 38.36 |
| 80.21 | 10.54 | 85.79 | 13.92 | 65.78 | 38.94 | |
| 77.42 | 12.03 | 84.33 | 15.31 | 63.12 | 41.27 | |
| Sub-band | Demographic probe | Forgery probe |
|---|---|---|
| ( ) | balanced acc. (%) | AUC (%) |
| 48.6 | 71.2 | |
| 40.2 | 77.8 | |
| 42.1 | 75.9 | |
| 34.8 | 82.4 | |
| 26.9 | 89.1 |
| Attribute | Spatial spectral (GCWD) | Pooled (SLMA) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature view | ( ) | low-freq | high-freq | mean shift |
| Principal-only ( ) | gender | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.34 |
| ethnicity | 0.21 | 0.09 | 0.22 | |
| Residual-only ( ) | gender | 0.41 | 0.13 | 1.00 |
| ethnicity | 1.00 | 0.16 | 0.58 | |
| Feature / model | AUC | Gender (chance 50.0) | Ethnicity (chance 33.3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principal-only (reference) | – | 80.1 | 66.0 |
| Subspace-decomposed baseline Yan et al. (2025) , | 65.1 | 78.4 | 63.7 |
| + GCWD only | 65.6 | 71.6 | 54.9 |
| + SLMA only | 65.4 | 65.8 | 58.4 |
| FairReL (GCWD + SLMA) | 66.3 | 58.5 | 50.9 |
Deepfake Detection
Deepfake detection identifies manipulated or AI-generated media to support trustworthy communication, identity verification, and forensic analysis.
See all 233 papers