ArticleScientific reports2026
A score based likelihood ratio framework for deepfake image identification in forensic science.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper proposes a score-based likelihood ratio system for forensic identification of deepfake images, addressing challenges in digital media identification due to rapid deepfake development. Built on the FaceForensics + + dataset, the system prevents data leakage via video-level splits (training, validation, selection, calibration, and test sets). Among six candidate models, the Capsule detector demonstrates the most robust performance (AUC = 0.983). Score distributions of real and fake samples are modeled using kernel density estimation, with optimal bandwidths selected through a two-stage search (real: 0.004, fake: 0.003). Extreme LR values are bounded using the empirical lower and upper bounds method (- 2.3634 to 1.9933), and PAV calibration is applied to optimize the calibration performance of the LR system. On the FF + + test set, the system exhibits favorable performancewith forensic practice expectations: low misleading evidence rates (RMEP = 0.069, RMED = 0.092), good error control (EER = 0.0804), and reduced decision loss after calibration (the cost log-likelihood ratio from 0.2899 to 0.1625). Generalization tests on five unseen datasets (Celeb-DF-v1/v2, DFDCP_methodA/B, UADFV) yield AUCs between 0.621 and 0.783-highest on UADFV (0.783), stable on DFDCP, weaker on Celeb-DF. The results show that at the moment, the technique shows potential for forensic-oriented deepfake identification, but requires further validation across diverse real-world scenarios before practical forensic application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.