Organizations: Xinjiang University, China · University of Cambridge, UK · Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy (MPI-SP), Germany · Hunan University, China · Institute of Cyber Security for Society (iCSS), University of Kent, London and South East University Group, UK
Generative models for deepfakes have rapidly evolved from GAN-based architectures to diffusion models and multimodal large language models (MLLMs). However, empirical research on human performance in detecting deepfake face images has not kept pace. It remains unclear if (and how) detection performance varies across generative models and whether model-specific training improves detection more effectively than general-purpose training. In this paper, we propose the Deepfake Face Artifact Taxonomy (DFAT), a cross-model taxonomy of human-recognizable visual artifacts in deepfake face images, based on which we build both general-purpose and model-specific training materials. Through an online experiment (n=524), we examined human performance in detecting deepfake face images and evaluated training efficacy across five representative generative models: three GAN-based, one diffusion-based, and one MLLM (GPT-5). Our results show that participants' detection accuracy was strongly model-dependent and that images generated by more recent and advanced models were not necessarily harder to detect. After training, participants achieved significant performance gains across most conditions, and their improvement varied by model. Notably, model-specific training generally yielded greater numerical gains than general-purpose training. In a five-month follow-up test (n=342), we observed no significant decline in detection accuracy and no significant increase in perceived stress. Overall, our findings provide actionable insights for designing effective, sustainable, and targeted training programs to counter the growing threat posed by deepfakes.
Figures & tables
Model
Venue/Vendor (Year)
Output Size(s)
Reason(s) of Selection
StyleGAN2 [ 9 ]
CVPR (2020)
1024×1024
The most widely studied high-fidelity GAN-based model
StyleGAN3 [ 28 ]
NeurIPS (2021)
1024×1024
The most recent variant of the StyleGAN family with improved alias-free generation
GRAM-HD [ 29 ]
ICCV (2023)
1024×1024
A GAN-based model more recent than StyleGAN3
Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large (SD3.5 for short) [ 30 , 31 ]
Stability AI (2024)
Multiple sizes
The latest version of the Stable Diffusion open-weight text-to-image models supporting prompt-based generation
GPT image generation (GPT-5 interface) [ 32 ]
OpenAI (2025)
Multiple sizes
One of the best-performing and widely used MLLMs when we started our work in mid 2025
TABLE I: Description of the five generative models used in our study.
Fig. 1: Illustration of the Deepfake Face Artifact Taxonomy (DFAT).
TABLE II: Prevalence of artifact types across deepfake models. We categorize the occurrence frequency into four levels: High ( > 50%), Medium ( >20% and ≤50% ), Low (1–20%), and – (not observed, i.e., 0%).
Training materials
Format
Deepfake model
Detection accuracy: mean (SD)
N
Pre-Training
Post-Training
General- purpose
Side-by-side
StyleGAN2
62.0% (19.8%)
74.1% (18.4%)
54
StyleGAN3
67.5% (25.8%)
81.6% (20.9%)
55
GRAM-HD
79.2% (22.4%)
86.8% (15.9%)
60
SD3.5
92.7% (12.9%)
93.2% (12.1%)
60
GPT-5
80.8% (21.2%)
85.3% (18.7%)
49
TABLE III: Descriptive statistics for detection accuracy.
Fig. 2: Baseline detection accuracy across deepfake models and presentation formats. Box plots display median, interquartile range, and full range.
Fig. 3: Mean improvement in detection accuracy (post-training minus pre-training) by deepfake model, training material, and presentation format. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals; significance markers denote Holm-corrected Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for pre–post changes.
Fig. 4: Pre–post changes in deepfake-image and real-image detection accuracy in the single-image task. Points show mean accuracy; error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 5: Post-training detection accuracy across models and training material types: the main experiment (immediately after training), the follow-up test and the new-image test (five months later). Error bars indicate standard errors; annotations show changes from immediate post-training to five-month retention.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Training strategy
Study
Stimulus type(s)
Human performance
Deepfake model(s) (year)
Deepfake knowledge
Bray et al. [ 27 ]
Image (face)
Not significant (avg. 59.7% to 64.3%)
StyleGAN2 (2020)
Nightingale et al. [ 26 ]
Image (face)
Improved (avg. 48.2% to 59.0%)
StyleGAN2 (2020)
Feedback training & AI support
Boyd et al. [ 23 ]
Image (face)
Improved fake-image accuracy (avg. 51.9% to 65.2%); no model-specific accuracy reported
The rapid progress of generative adversarial networks (GANs) and diffusion models has enabled the creation of synthetic faces that are increasingly difficult to distinguish from real images. This progress, however, has also amplified the risks of misinformation, fraud, and identity abuse, underscoring the urgent need for detectors that remain robust across diverse generative models. In this work, we introduce Counterfeit Image Pattern High-level Examination via Representation(CIPHER), a deepfake detection framework that systematically reuses and fine-tunes discriminators originally trained for image generation. By extracting scale-adaptive features from ProGAN discriminators and temporal-consistency features from diffusion models, CIPHER captures generation-agnostic artifacts that conventional detectors often overlook. Through extensive experiments across nine state-of-the-art generative models, CIPHER demonstrates superior cross-model detection performance, achieving up to 74.33% F1-score and outperforming existing ViT-based detectors by over 30% in F1-score on average. Notably, our approach maintains robust performance on challenging datasets where baseline methods fail, with up to 88% F1-score on CIFAKE compared to near-zero performance from conventional detectors. These results validate the effectiveness of discriminator reuse and cross-model fine-tuning, establishing CIPHER as a promising approach toward building more generalizable and robust deepfake detection systems in an era of rapidly evolving generative technologies.
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.
Olivia Salamon, Virginia N. L. Franqueira, Shujun Li
Institute of Cyber Security for Society (iCSS) & School of Computing, University of Kent, London and South East University Group, Canterbury, UK
Deepfake detection remains a critical challenge in the era of advanced generative models, particularly as synthetic media becomes more sophisticated. In this study, we explore the potential of state of the art multi-modal (reasoning) large language models (LLMs) for deepfake image detection such as (OpenAI O1/4o, Gemini thinking Flash 2, Deepseek Janus, Grok 3, llama 3.2, Qwen 2/2.5 VL, Mistral Pixtral, Claude 3.5/3.7 sonnet) . We benchmark 12 latest multi-modal LLMs against traditional deepfake detection methods across multiple datasets, including recently published real-world deepfake imagery. To enhance performance, we employ prompt tuning and conduct an in-depth analysis of the models' reasoning pathways to identify key contributing factors in their decision-making process. Our findings indicate that best multi-modal LLMs achieve competitive performance with promising generalization ability with zero shot, even surpass traditional deepfake detection pipelines in out-of-distribution datasets while the rest of the LLM families performs extremely disappointing with some worse than random guess. Furthermore, we found newer model version and reasoning capabilities does not contribute to performance in such niche tasks of deepfake detection while model size do help in some cases. This study highlights the potential of integrating multi-modal reasoning in future deepfake detection frameworks and provides insights into model interpretability for robustness in real-world scenarios.
Simiao Ren, Yao Yao, Kidus Zewde +8
Dennis · Duke University · University of Wisconsin Madison +2