How does the corruption robustness of audio-visual deception detection models compare to vision-language model

Abstract

Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used as perceptual modules for visual content reasoning, including through captioning and DeepFake detection. In this work, we expose a critical vulnerability of VLMs when exposed to subtle, structured perturbations in the frequency domain. Specifically, we highlight how these feature transformations undermine authenticity/DeepFake detection and automated image captioning tasks. We design targeted image transformations, operating in the frequency domain to systematically adjust VLM outputs when exposed to frequency-perturbed real and synthetic ima

Research Question

How does the corruption robustness of audio-visual deception detection models compare to vision-language models on perturbed multimodal benchmarks?

Verification Level

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance