FUZZY RULE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTY FACTORS IN DEEPFAKE CLASSIFICATION

Authors

  • Primbetov Abbaz Phd student, Tashkent University of Information Technologies named after Muhammad Al-Khwarizmi 1Senior lecturer, Computer engineering, Tashkent University of Applied Sciences Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65164/1pg9sc73

Keywords:

Fuzzy logic; Deepfake detection; Uncertainty factors; Expert system, Multimedia security.

Abstract

This study proposes a fuzzy logic–based expert system for evaluating uncertainty factors in deepfake image and video classification. Traditional classifiers rely primarily on prediction accuracy and often fail under non-ideal visual conditions, such as poor illumination, unstable face pose, or compression artifacts. The proposed system models three critical factors—classifier accuracy, illumination quality, and face stability—using linguistic membership functions (low, medium, high) and applies Mamdani-type fuzzy inference rules to compute a final Confidence Score. Experimental analysis shows that the fuzzy decision layer significantly improves reliability, especially in borderline cases where the model accuracy alone is insufficient to make a trustworthy conclusion. By integrating scene-quality attributes, the system reduces misclassification and provides transparent decision-making logic. This framework enhances the robustness of deepfake detection and can be effectively applied in digital forensics, security inspection, media validation, and real-time monitoring applications. 

References

1. M. Tolosana, R. Vera-Rodriguez, J. Fierrez, A. Morales, and J. Ortega-Garcia, “Deepfakes and

beyond: A survey of face manipulation and fake detection,” *Information Fusion*, vol. 64, pp.

131–148, 2020.

2. Diel et al., “Human performance in detecting deepfakes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

of 56 papers,” *Computers in Human Behavior Reports*, vol. 16, p. 100538, 2024.

3. F. Chollet, “Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions,” in *Proc. IEEE

Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*, 2017, pp. 1251–1258.

4. M. Tan and Q. Le, “EfficientNet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks,”

in *Proc. Int. Conf. Machine Learning (ICML)*, 2019, pp. 6105–6114.

5. S. Xie, R. Girshick, P. Dollár, Z. Tu, and K. He, “Aggregated residual transformations for deep

neural networks,” in *Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*,

2017, pp. 1492–1500.

6. van Gansbeke, A. Dhoedt, and J. Van de Weijer, “Temporal awareness in deepfake detection,”

*IEEE Trans. Biometrics, Behavior, and Identity Science*, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 176–187, 2021.

7. S. Tipper, H. F. Atlam, and H. S. Lallie, “An investigation into the utilisation of CNN with LSTM

for video deepfake detection,” *Applied Sciences*, vol. 14, no. 21, p. 9754, 2024.

8. Maxmudjanov Sarvar, Primbetov Abbaz Muratbay Uli, and Naimov Axadjon Tojimirza O‘G‘Li.

"DEEPFAKE DETECTION USING A HYBRID RESNEXT AND LSTM ARCHITECTURE."

Al-Farg’oniy avlodlari 1.2 (2025): 87-94

Published

2025-12-29