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