Evaluates models on detecting and temporally localizing audio-visual deepfakes in realistic, LLM-generated content. It probes robustness against multimodal manipulations like face reenactment and text-to-speech, testing both video-level classification and frame/segment-level localization. Use when the user wants to benchmark on AV-Deepfake1M, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports AP@0.5.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill av-deepfake1m-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Av Deepfake1m Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-av-deepfake1m-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: av-deepfake1m-eval
description: Evaluates models on detecting and temporally localizing audio-visual deepfakes in realistic, LLM-generated content. It probes robustness against multimodal manipulations like face reenactment and text-to-speech, testing both video-level classification and frame/segment-level localization. Use when the user wants to benchmark on AV-Deepfake1M, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports AP@0.5.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2311.15308
bibtex_key: cai2023avdeepfake1m
confidence: high
---
# av-deepfake1m-eval
> AV-Deepfake1M: A Large-Scale LLM-Driven Audio-Visual Deepfake Dataset — Cai et al. (2023) (arXiv:2311.15308, 2023)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates models on detecting and temporally localizing audio-visual deepfakes in realistic, LLM-generated content. It probes robustness against multimodal manipulations like face reenactment and text-to-speech, testing both video-level classification and frame/segment-level localization.
## Datasets
- **AV-Deepfake1M** — total 1000000; splits: fullset (-1), subset V (-1), subset A (-1); repo https://github.com/ControlNet/AV-Deepfake1M
## Metrics
- `AP@0.5` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Average Precision at Intersection over Union (IoU) threshold of 0.5 for temporal segment localization. Computed by matching predicted fake segments to ground truth segments with IoU >= 0.5, then calculating precision-recall curve area.
- `AUC` — range: [0, 1]
- Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve for video-level deepfake classification. Measures the trade-off between true positive rate and false positive rate across all classification thresholds.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Audio-visual video clips (full multimodal set, or unimodal video/audio subsets). Models receive synchronized video frames and audio tracks.
**Output**: For localization: temporal segment boundaries or frame/segment-level fake probability scores. For detection: video-level binary classification or fake probability score.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_ap_at_iou(pred_segments, gt_segments, iou_thresh=0.5):
ious = compute_iou(pred_segments, gt_segments)
matches = (ious >= iou_thresh).nonzero()
return average_precision(matches, ious)
def compute_auc(scores, labels):
fpr, tpr, _ = roc_curve(labels, scores)
return auc(fpr, tpr)
# Aggregation for frame/segment predictions to video-level:
video_score = max(frame_scores) # Optimal strategy per paper
```
## Common pitfalls
- Aggregation strategy for frame/segment predictions to video-level scores significantly impacts detection performance; the paper finds max pooling optimal over average or top-5 average.
- Models trained only on video-level labels perform poorly on temporal localization; fine-grained segment/frame labels are required for meaningful performance.
- Unimodal subsets (V and A) show different performance characteristics compared to the full multimodal set, so evaluating only on one modality may misrepresent robustness.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> The frame- and segment-based deepfake detection methods can only produce frame- and segment-level predictions. Thus, a suitable aggregation strategy is required to generate the video-level predictions. We investigated several popular aggregation strategies, such as max (e.g., [6]), average (e.g., [15, 23, 63]), and the average of the highest 5 scores (e.g., [37]) for video-level predictions. The results of the experiment are presented in Table 9. The results show that max is the optimal aggregation strategy on AV-Deepfake1M for the considered deepfake detection methods. However, even with the frame-level labels provided during training, the AUC of the best-performing methods is less than 70, due to the multimodal modifications present in AV-Deepfake1M.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{cai2023avdeepfake1m,
title={AV-Deepfake1M: A Large-Scale LLM-Driven Audio-Visual Deepfake Dataset},
author={Cai et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2311.15308}
}
```
- arXiv: 2311.15308
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!