Organizations: Department of Networks and Digital Media, Kingston University London, UK · Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH), Thessaloniki, Greece · Department of Computer Science, Kingston University London, UK
Deepfake detection methods have become increasingly effective yet most provide limited insight into the evidence behind their predictions. However, in forensic settings users also need to know which manipulation cues support the decision and where they appear. Existing explainability methods only partially address this need since localization-based approaches lack semantic descriptions while language-based explanation methods are only weakly grounded in visual evidence. In this work, we propose DF-CBM, a region-aware concept bottleneck model for explainable deepfake detection. DF-CBM builds a compact vocabulary of manipulation-related concepts from textual artifact annotations and links each concept to plausible facial and boundary regions. It then predicts these concepts from visual features using a concept-specific masked attention mechanism guided by parsed facial masks and the final real/fake decision is made from the predicted concept bottleneck. Our experiments show that DF-CBM outperforms concept-based baselines in concept prediction and deepfake classification while remaining competitive with state-of-the-art black-box detectors. Finally, qualitative results and intervention analyses demonstrate that DF-CBM provides spatially grounded concept evidence and enables counterfactual explanations of how individual manipulation concepts influence the final prediction. Our code is available at: https://github.com/GeorgeTsoumplekas/DF-CBM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1 : Explanation capabilities of existing deepfake detection approaches and DF-CBM that provides both localized visual evidence and grounded manipulation concepts.
Figure 2 : Overview of the region-aware concept bottleneck model in DF-CBM.
Model
B-Acc.
F1
F-AUC
V-AUC
Joint-CBM [ 26 ]
0.687
0.310
0.739
0.753
BotCL [ 56 ]
0.651
0.300
0.689
0.693
DF-CBM
0.675
0.563
0.743
0.772
Table 1 : Macro-averaged concept prediction performance on the FaceForensics++ test set.
Methods
UniFace
BlendFace
MobSwap
e4s
FaceDan
FSGAN
InSwap
SimSwap
Avg.
SBI [ 44 ]
0.724
0.891
0.952
0.750
0.594
0.803
0.712
0.701
0.766
UCF [ 62 ]
0.831
0.827
0.950
0.731
0.862
0.937
0.809
0.647
0.824
IID [ 16 ]
0.839
0.789
0.888
0.766
0.844
0.927
0.789
0.644
0.811
LSDA [ 59 ]
0.872
0.875
0.930
0.694
0.721
0.939
0.855
0.793
0.835
ProDet [ 5 ]
0.908
0.929
0.975
0.771
0.747
0.928
0.837
0.844
0.867
CDFA [ 33 ]
0.762
0.756
0.823
0.631
0.803
0.942
0.772
0.757
0.781
Table 2 : Intra-dataset deepfake detection performance on FaceForensics++ using video-level AUC. DF-CBM is compared with black-box detectors (top-part) and concept-based baselines (bottom part) across eight manipulation methods. Best results among the concept-based methods are shown in bold .
Methods
CDF-v2
DFD
DFDC
DFDCP
UADFV
Avg.
SBI [ 44 ]
0.886
0.827
0.717
0.848
-
-
UCF [ 62 ]
0.837
0.867
0.742
0.770
-
-
IID [ 16 ]
0.838
0.939
0.700
0.689
-
-
LSDA [ 59 ]
0.875
0.881
0.701
0.812
-
-
ProDet [ 5 ]
0.926
0.901
0.707
0.828
-
-
CDFA [ 33 ]
0.938
0.954
0.830
0.881
-
-
Table 3 : Cross-dataset deepfake detection performance using video-level AUC. Models are trained on FaceForensics++ and evaluated on unseen datasets. Best results among the concept-based methods (bottom part) are shown in bold .
Methods
CDF-v2
DFD
DFDC
DFDCP
UADFV
Avg.
SBI [ 44 ]
0.813
0.774
-
0.799
-
-
UCF [ 62 ]
0.753
0.807
0.719
0.759
-
-
ED [ 1 ]
0.864
-
0.721
0.851
-
-
CFM [ 35 ]
0.828
0.915
-
0.758
-
-
FoCus [ 50 ]
0.720
-
0.669
0.778
-
-
LSDA [ 59 ]
0.830
0.880
0.736
0.815
-
-
Table 4 : Cross-dataset deepfake detection performance using frame-level AUC. Models are trained on FaceForensics++ and evaluated on unseen datasets. Best results among the concept-based methods (bottom part) are shown in bold .
Figure 3 : Qualitative examples of DF-CBM explanations. For each manipulated image, we show concept-specific attention maps, their overlays on the input image and the corresponding concept contribution scores.
Methods
UniFace
BlendFace
MobSwap
e4s
FaceDan
FSGAN
InSwap
SimSwap
Avg.
DF-CBM
0.912
0.878
0.919
0.968
0.845
0.928
0.835
0.891
0.897
w/o region prior
0.884
0.789
0.884
0.926
0.812
0.879
0.807
0.809
0.849
w/o concept-specific attention
0.830
0.810
0.866
0.936
0.811
0.896
0.768
0.843
0.845
w/o concept bottleneck
0.868
0.837
0.927
0.933
0.877
0.912
0.844
0.877
0.884
Table 5 : Architectural component ablation on FaceForensics++ using video-level AUC.
Methods
UniFace
BlendFace
MobSwap
e4s
FaceDan
FSGAN
InSwap
SimSwap
Avg.
DF-CBM
0.912
0.878
0.919
0.968
0.845
0.928
0.835
0.891
0.897
frozen text queries
0.911
0.867
0.919
0.967
0.851
0.932
0.829
0.887
0.895
random query initialization
0.827
0.811
0.875
0.955
0.805
0.907
0.784
0.825
0.849
Table 6 : Query design ablation for the masked cross-attention mechanism on FaceForensics++ using video-level AUC.
Figure 4 : Sequential concept intervention traces for two misclassified samples: (a) ground-truth real, (b) ground-truth fake. At each step, a single concept is intervened on while retaining all previous interventions. The left panels show the evolution of the raw class logits, whereas the right panels show the corresponding softmax probabilities.