Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM68601
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-2
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Electronics And Telecommunication
Dr. Daulatrao Aher College of Engineering karad
Electronics And Telecommunication
Dr. Daulatrao Aher College of Engineering karad
Electronics And Telecommunication
Dr. Daulatrao Aher College of Engineering karad
Electronics And Telecommunication
Dr. Daulatrao Aher College of Engineering karad
The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence has changed the way digital images and audio can be produced, edited and shared. Modern generative systems can create realistic portraits, scenes and human-like speech, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish authentic recordings from synthetic or manipulated media through visual or auditory inspection alone. Such content is commonly described as deepfake media. While generative technologies support creative production, accessibility and entertainment, their misuse can contribute to misinformation, identity impersonation, financial fraud and harm to personal or institutional reputation. Therefore, dependable methods for analysing the authenticity of digital media are becoming increasingly important. This review paper studies deepfake detection for AI-generated images and audio using deep learning techniques. It reviews Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) for learning spatial patterns in images, along with audio feature extraction and CNN/RNN-based models for analysing synthetic speech. The proposed framework accepts an image or audio file, applies preprocessing suitable for that media type, extracts useful patterns and classifies the input as likely real or fake. A result interface presents the predicted class with a confidence score. The review also considers datasets, model training, testing procedures and evaluation measures such as precision, recall, F1-score and ROC-AUC. Important limitations include the rapid evolution of generation methods, compression, noise, dataset bias and weak generalization to unfamiliar media. The intended system is a practical first-level screening tool; its output should support further verification rather than be treated as conclusive proof of authenticity.
KEYWORDS
This review has examined deep learning approaches for detecting potentially AI-generated images and audio and outlined a framework that brings both tasks into one application. Image CNNs can learn spatial features such as texture, boundaries and visual inconsistencies, whereas audio models can analyse waveform or spectrogram features and use temporal networks to represent changes across speech. By applying separate preprocessing steps and modality-specific models, the proposed system can accept either type of media and present a real/fake prediction with a confidence estimate through a common result interface. This design makes the detection workflow easier to use while respecting the different characteristics of image and audio data. The reliability of such a system depends not only on its model architecture but also on the quality and diversity of its datasets, the separation of training and testing data, and the realism of evaluation conditions. Compression, noise, unfamiliar generators and dataset bias can reduce performance, so evaluation should use independent samples and several metrics rather than a single accuracy figure. Confidence scores should be communicated carefully, and an inconclusive result should remain possible when the evidence is weak. Since synthetic-media techniques continue to evolve, ongoing testing and updating are necessary. Overall, deep learning can provide useful support for preliminary deepfake screening, but it should not replace human judgement, provenance checks or expert forensic analysis. Responsible data handling and transparent limitations are essential for practical use.
[1] H.-H. Nguyen-Le et al., “Deepfake detection across image, video, and audio: a comprehensive survey with empirical evaluation of generalization and robustness,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 59, article 203, 2026. [2] “A Survey on Speech Deepfake Detection,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 57, no. 7, article 165, 2025, doi: 10.1145/3714458. [3] J. Yi et al., “Audio Deepfake Detection: A Survey,” arXiv:2308.14970, 2023. [4] A. Rössler et al., “FaceForensics++: Learning to Detect Manipulated Facial Images,” Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019. [5] B. Dolhansky et al., “The DeepFake Detection Challenge (DFDC) Dataset,” arXiv:2006.07397, 2020. [6] ASVspoof, “Automatic Speaker Verification Spoofing and Countermeasures Challenge,” challenge datasets and evaluation resources. [7] “Deepfake: definitions, performance metrics and standards, datasets, and a meta-review,” available through PubMed Central, 2024.
Publication Date
10/31/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
0
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
4
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...