Perceptual Judgments to Detect Computer Generated Forged Faces in Social Media

  • Suzan AnwarEmail author
  • Mariofanna Milanova
  • Mardin Anwer
  • Anderson Banihirwe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11377)


There has been an increasing interest in developing methods for image representation learning, focused in particular on training deep neural networks to synthesize images. Generative adversarial networks (GANs) are used to apply face aging, to generate new viewpoints, or to alter face attributes like skin color. For forensics specifically on faces, some methods have been proposed to distinguish computer generated faces from natural ones and to detect face retouching. We propose to investigate techniques based on perceptual judgments to detect image/video manipulation produced by deep learning architectures. The main objectives of this study are: (1) To develop technique to make a distinction between Computer Generated and photographic faces based on Facial Expressions Analysis; (2) To develop entropy-based technique for forgery detection in Computer Generated (CG) human faces. The results show differences between emotions in both original and altered videos. These computed results were large and statistically significant. The results show that the entropy value for the altered videos is reduced comparing with the value of the original videos. Histograms of original frames have heavy tailed distribution, while in case of altered frames; the histograms are sharper due to the tiny values of images vertical and horizontal edges.


Video manipulation ASM Face expression Entropy based histogram 


  1. 1.
    Nordrum, A.: Forging voices and faces. Spectrum IEEE 14–15, May 2018.
  2. 2.
    Lu, Z., Li, Z., Cao, J., He, R., Sun, Z.: Recent progress of face image synthesis (2017).
  3. 3.
    Face-Swapping Porn: How a Creepy Internet Trend Could Threaten Democracy, Rolling Stone, 4.18.18.
  4. 4.
    Karras, T., Aila, T., Laine, S., Lehtinen, J.: Progressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variation, ICLR 2018.
  5. 5.
    Antipov, G., Baccouche, M., Dugelay, J.-L.: Face Aging With Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks, May 2017.
  6. 6.
    Milanova, M., Kountchev, R., Ford, C., Kountcheva, R.: Watermarking with inverse difference pyramid decomposition. In: International Signal Processing Conference, Dallas, USA, pp. 346–362 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, X., et al.: Recent advances in passive digital image security forensics: a brief review. Engineering 4, 29–39 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rahmouni, N., Nozick, V., Yamagishi, J., Echizeny, I.: Distinguishing computer graphics from natural images using convolution neural networks. In: IEEE Workshop on Information Forensics and Security, pp. 1–6 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bharati, A., Singh, R., Vatsa, M., Bowyer, K.: Detecting facial retouching using supervised deep learning. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 11(9), 1903–1913 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raghavendra, R., Raja, K., Venkatesh, S., Busch, C.: Transferable Deep-CNN features for detecting digital and print-scanned morphed face images. In: IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pp. 10–18 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou, P., Han, X., Morariu, V., Davis, L.: Two-stream neural networks for tampered face detection. In: IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pp. 1831–1839 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Rössler, A., Cozzolino, D., Verdoliva, L., Riess, C., Thies, J., Nießner, M.: FaceForensics: a large scale video dataset for forgery detection in human faces. CV Cornell University Library, March 2018Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Souza, D., Yampolskiy, R.: Natural vs artificial face classification using uniform local directional patterns and wavelet uniform local directional patterns. In: IEEE CVPRW, pp. 27–33 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dang-Nguyen, D.-T.: Discrimination of Computer Generated versus Natural Human Faces, February 2014.
  16. 16.
    Anwar, S., Milanova, M.: Real time face expression recognition of children with autism. IAEMR 1(1) (2016) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cootes, T.F., Taylor, C.J., Cooper, D.H., Graham, J., et al.: Active shape models-their training and application. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 61, 38–59 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ekman, P., Friesen, W.: Facial Action Coding System. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto (1978)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vij, K., Singh, Y.: Enhancement of images using histogram processing techniques. Int. J. Comput. Tech. Appl. 2(2), 309–313. ISSN: 2229-6093Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harris, B.: Entropy. In: Balakrishnan, N., Read, C.B., Vidakovic, B. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, vol. 3, 2nd edn., pp. 1992–1996. Wiley, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rich, R., Tracy, J.: The relationship between expected inflation, disagreement, and uncertainty: evidence from matched point and density forecasts. Staff Report No. 253, Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (Revised version published in Review of Economics and Statistics 92(2010), 200–207 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzan Anwar
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mariofanna Milanova
    • 1
  • Mardin Anwer
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anderson Banihirwe
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Arkansas at Little RockLittle RockUSA
  2. 2.Salahaddin UniversityErbilIraq
  3. 3.Lebanese-French UniversityErbilIraq

Personalised recommendations