Does Federated Training Degrade Explainability? A Comparative Analysis of Grad-CAM Faithfulness in Centralized vs. Federated Deepfake Detection
Organizations: independent researcher based in Pakistan
Abstract
Automated detection has become the essential safeguard against realistic synthetic media, but deploying it at scale requires training on sensitive data from multiple organizations, putting privacy and the transparency demanded by forensic review in direct conflict. Federated learning resolves the privacy side by sharing only model updates rather than raw data, but whether this comes at the cost of trustworthy gradient-based explanations, which analysts rely on to decide whether or not to trust a flagged clip, has not been studied. We present the systematic study of Grad-CAM explanation faithfulness under federated deepfake detection, evaluating an EfficientNet-B4 detector on FaceForensics++ across five federated clients under varying degrees of data heterogeneity. We find that the relationship between federation and explanation quality is non-monotonic: at near-IID (Independent and Identically Distributed Data) and moderate heterogeneity, federated models match or exceed the faithfulness of a centralized baseline, but at extreme heterogeneity, explanations break down entirely, becoming spatially incoherent and, on average, causally misleading. This degradation is not a general cost of federated training but a threshold effect tied to client heterogeneity, and we offer practical guidance for identifying when privacy-preserving deepfake detection can be deployed safely and when its explanations can no longer be trusted. Code and data partitions are available for reproducibility.
Figures & tables
| Research Pillar | Established | Missing |
|---|---|---|
| Federated Learning [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] | FedAvg, FedProx, convergence analysis, weight divergence under non-IID data, Dirichlet as the standard heterogeneity benchmark | Effect of gradient divergence on explanation faithfulness remains unexplored |
| Deepfake Detection [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] | High-performance detectors with Grad-CAM, SHAP, adversarial robustness, and centralized explainability | Federated implementation and evaluation of explanation reliability |
| XAI Faithfulness [ 2 , 3 , 13 , 14 ] | Grad-CAM, AOPC, sanity checks, and saliency reliability provide objective explanation evaluation | No application of these metrics to federated deepfake detection under statistical heterogeneity |
| Federated XAI [ 15 , 16 ] | Explainability integrated into FL for credit assessment and intrusion detection | High-dimensional visual forensics, quantitative comparison between centralized and federated explanations, and heterogeneity-aware faithfulness evaluation |
Explainable Deepfake Detection
Explainable deepfake detection identifies manipulated media and shows which visual, temporal, or acoustic evidence supports each decision.
See all 61 papers