Skip to main content
. 2024 Apr 11;10:e1959. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1959

Table 2. The performace of our method and other state-of-art methods on FaceForensics++ dataset.

Method Raw C23 C40
ACC AUC (%) ACC AUC (%) ACC AUC (%)
Xception (Chollet, 2017) 99.26 99.2 95.73 96.3 86.86 89.3
Face X-ray (Li et al., 2020a) – – – 87.4 – 61.6
F3Net (Qian et al., 2020) 99.95 99.8 97.52 98.1 90.43 93.3
Two-branch (Masi et al., 2020) – – 96.43 98.7 86.34 86.59
WDB (Jia et al., 2021) 99.74 99.78 96.95 99.6 88.96 92.97
FDFL (Li et al., 2021) – – 96.69 98.5 89.0 92.4
LRL (Chen et al., 2021) 99.87 99.92 97.59 99.46 91.47 95.21
M2TR (Wang et al., 2022) 99.50 99.92 97.93 99.51 92.89 95.31
RECCE (Cao et al., 2022) – – 97.06 99.32 91.03 95.02
GocNet (Guo et al., 2023c) – – 94.34 97.75 89.46 92.52
LDFnet (Guo et al., 2023b) – – 96.01 98.92 92.32 96.79
Our 99.62 99.87 97.98 99.64 92.92 94.35

Note:

Bold values refer to the best values.