DETER: Detecting Edited Regions for Deterring Generative Manipulations
Sai Wang, Ye Zhu, Ruoyu Wang, Amaya Dharmasiri, Olga Russakovsky, Yu, Wu

TL;DR
DETER is a large-scale, diverse dataset designed to improve the detection of various types of manipulated images, addressing limitations of previous datasets and aiding the development of more reliable deep fake detection methods.
Contribution
The paper introduces DETER, a comprehensive dataset with diverse manipulations and realistic fake images, to advance the detection of generative image manipulations.
Findings
Deep fake detection rate is 20.4% lower on DETER compared to other datasets.
DETER includes 300,000 images manipulated by four state-of-the-art generators.
The dataset covers face swapping, inpainting, and attribute editing manipulations.
Abstract
Generative AI capabilities have grown substantially in recent years, raising renewed concerns about potential malicious use of generated data, or "deep fakes". However, deep fake datasets have not kept up with generative AI advancements sufficiently to enable the development of deep fake detection technology which can meaningfully alert human users in real-world settings. Existing datasets typically use GAN-based models and introduce spurious correlations by always editing similar face regions. To counteract the shortcomings, we introduce DETER, a large-scale dataset for DETEcting edited image Regions and deterring modern advanced generative manipulations. DETER includes 300,000 images manipulated by four state-of-the-art generators with three editing operations: face swapping (a standard coarse image manipulation), inpainting (a novel manipulation for deep fake datasets), and attribute…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
1. The paper presents a new dataset of 30,000 images, which is larger and incorporates different granularities for image editing. It also includes masks for more accurate evaluations. 2. The paper includes many different models for predictions and detection.
1. In the user study, it is a bad idea to include "I'm not sure" as an option, which will greatly harm the data quality and amount of information. Instead, binary selections can still be enforced, and you can ask participants to indicate their confidence scores. The same is true for GPT-4. 2. The dataset only includes edited images from four different models, which might be insufficient for a comprehensive dataset, especially considering the current flourishing development of generative AI techn
see the above summary.
Two points to clarify, rather than weakness.
The new dataset introduced by this paper can potentially make valuable contributions by addressing a critical challenge in the era of widespread AI image manipulation. It has the following merits: - Incorporates current state-of-the-art generative models - Comprehensive evaluation framework - Extensive experiments with multiple detection methods - Well-documented human evaluation studies - Thorough cross-domain analysis Clarity. This paper has clear methodology presentation and well-structured
The main concerns about this paper are ethical and legal concerns. - There is no clear discussion of whether they have rights to modify/redistribute CelebA and WiderFace images. For example, the CelebA dataset has the following agreement: “You agree not to further copy, publish or distribute any portion of the CelebA dataset. Except, for internal use at a single site within the same organization it is allowed to make copies of the dataset.” - And there is no discussion of consent from individua
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis · Face recognition and analysis · Digital Media Forensic Detection
MethodsSparse Evolutionary Training · Inpainting
