Validation study demonstrates a cross-modal attribution metric across audio-visual deepfakes, indicating reliable evaluation of whether detectors pinpoint the manipulated modality.
Multimodal deepfake detectors combine visual and audio information, but their evaluation usually focuses on whether the final REAL or FAKE prediction is correct. That leaves a separate question: when a detector explains a fake clip, does the explanation point to the modality that was actually manipulated? FakeAVCeleb provides a useful setting for this question because its clips include labels for video-only, audio-only, and both-modality manipulations. I introduce the Cross-Modal Attribution Score (CMAS), a simple metric that compares a two-element visual and audio attribution vector with the corresponding manipulated-modality label using cosine similarity. I evaluate CMAS with a multimodal detector built from an EfficientNet-B0 visual encoder, a Wav2Vec2-base audio encoder, and a cross-attention fusion module. On the final 3,103-clip test split, the multimodal model reaches 99.55% accuracy and 99.77% F1. The visual-only and audio-only baselines reach 97.23% and 84.56% accuracy, with F1 scores of 98.56% and 91.49%, respectively. For the reported CMAS analysis, modality-ablation attribution has a mean score of 0.9997 and Integrated Gradients has a mean score of 0.9466 on 125 FAKE samples with defined manipulated-modality labels. I also document a calibration problem found during development: balanced sampling was used together with inverse-frequency loss weighting, which placed the decision threshold poorly for the initial models. Removing the extra loss weighting and retraining the audio-only and multimodal models produced better-calibrated default predictions. The results are presented with the limitations of the dataset, the final split, and the CMAS sample size stated explicitly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tejvir Singh Grewal (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: