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.
Installs 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 with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-av-deepfake1m-eval)
---
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