Can liveness detection models generalise to synthetic media generation techniques they were never trained on? [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Most liveness detection systems in production today were built around a threat model where the attacker is submitting a static image or a basic replay video. The generation quality of current synthetic media is categorically different from what those training datasets captured.
The question I keep coming back to is whether a model trained on historical deepfake samples can generalise to generation techniques that did not exist when the training data was assembled. And if the answer is no, what does the update cycle look like for vendors claiming deepfake detection as a core capability.
I asked two identity verification vendors this directly and got answers that sounded confident without addressing the temporal gap between training data and current generation quality.
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D]
Aug 14
-
Building text to ASCII diffusion model , need advice and guidance [P]
Aug 14
-
A collision-entropy floor for watermark/retrieval AI-text detection. Looking for a sanity check before I take this further [D]
Aug 14
-
Are supervised and unsupervised learning still relevant today? [D]
Aug 14
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.