Deep Learning for Deepfake Image Detection: Comparative Model Evaluation and Gradient-Based Visual Attribution

Recent advances in generative image models have made many manipulated images highly realistic, raising the need for detectors that are not only accurate but also able to provide visual evidence for their decisions. In this paper, we present our solution to the Explainable Deepfake Detection Challenge [2] on the XPlainVerse dataset [1], where systems are required to predict whether an image is real or fake and generate both complex and simple explanations grounded in visible forensic cues. Our method follows a modular detection-and-explanation design. For the real/fake decision, we build a multi-backbone detector that combines several DINOv3 models with Mesorch manipulation-localization features, bringing together pretrained visual representations, DCT-aware cues, and multi-scale forensic information. To inject explanation evidence into the detector, we use a Grounding-DINO-based pseudo-mask generation pipeline that converts local artifact descriptions from training explanations into weak patch- level supervision for an Artifact Evidence Map. We further introduce a local patch-level contrastive objective that separates artifact and authenticity evidence in the detector feature space without requiring paired images or pixel-level manipulation masks. For language output, we use class-conditional Qwen3-VL models to generate complex explanations for fake and real predictions, followed by a GRPO-optimized text simplification model. The proposed methods were trained and evaluated on the challenge subset of XPlainVerse. On the full test split, our submission achieves 0.9349 detection accuracy, 0.5571 explanation score, and a 0.7456 final challenge score.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can explain deepfake verdicts in natural language, but such explanations are not necessarily visually grounded in the visual evidence underlying the prediction. A model may describe plausible artifacts inferred from language priors rather than from image evidence. Existing grounding methods improve visual reliance through decoding or attention interventions, but they generally strengthen grounding over the entire image, making them ill-suited for forensic artifacts that are subtle, spatially localized, and image-dependent. We propose Look Before You Judge, a training-free framework that formulates explainable deepfake detection as a sequential evidence acquisition process. Instead of directly predicting image authenticity from holistic visual reasoning, our framework first identifies image-specific candidate evidence regions by contrasting the MLLM's decoder-to-visual attention between an original image and its Gaussian-blurred counterpart. The identified regions are then inspected individually, and the resulting local evidence is integrated with the global image context before reaching a final verdict. The framework operates without manipulation masks, external forensic models, or parameter updates, making it directly applicable to off-the-shelf MLLMs. Across five open-source MLLMs on TriDF and MMTD-Set, our framework improves detection accuracy by up to 12.8%, reduces CHAIR by up to 33.4% and hallucination rate by up to 21.3%, and outperforms representative training-free decoding and attention methods.

As image generation models become increasingly capable of producing highly realistic content, traditional forensic techniques are struggling to keep up. This paper investigates whether MLLMs can instead be used as a form of forensic analysis by identifying synthetic media. Specifically, the study aims to determine whether these models detect fake images by recognising physical inconsistencies, or whether they rely on digital artefacts such as embedded watermarks. Six MLLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-5, GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5, Gemini 3, and Seed 1.6) are benchmarked using a dataset of 400 images. Fifty images are authentic photographs, while the remaining 350 are generated using seven leading image models: Gemini 3, Gemini 2.5, Flux.2 Pro, GPT-Image-1, GPT-Image-1.5, Seedream 4.0, and Seedream 4.5. The evaluation is structured in three stages: single-image classification, pairwise comparison, and a focused "self-detection" experiment on Gemini. Several MLLMs achieved a high detection accuracy, with GPT-5.2 reaching a peak of 97.9% in the pairwise experiment, against specific generators and an overall mean pairwise accuracy of 82.5% by identifying structural or physical inconsistencies within images. However, results from the self-detection experiment indicate that the presence of invisible SynthID watermarks leads to a 10% reduction in Gemini's detection accuracy compared to the clean control group. One possible explanation is that SynthID embedding reduces some of the visible artefacts the models rely on for detection. These results imply that MLLMs can detect structural artefacts without relying on watermarks, but performance varies substantially across model generations. The findings also suggest that SynthID embedding may suppress some of the structural artefacts used during detection.