Does Federated Training Degrade Explainability? A Comparative Analysis of Grad-CAM Faithfulness in Centralized vs. Federated Deepfake Detection
TL;DR
It is found that the relationship between federation and explanation quality is non-monotonic: at near-IID and moderate heterogeneity, federated models match or exceed the faithfulness of a centralized baseline, but at extreme heterogeneity, explanations break down entirely, becoming spatially incoherent and, on average, causally misleading.
Abstract
Automated detection has become the essential safeguard against realistic synthetic media, but deploying it at scale requires training on sensitive data from multiple organizations, putting privacy and the transparency demanded by forensic review in direct conflict. Federated learning resolves the privacy side by sharing only model updates rather than raw data, but whether this comes at the cost of trustworthy gradient-based explanations, which analysts rely on to decide whether or not to trust a flagged clip, has not been studied. We present the systematic study of Grad-CAM explanation faithfulness under federated deepfake detection, evaluating an EfficientNet-B4 detector on FaceForensics++ across five federated clients under varying degrees of data heterogeneity. We find that the relationship between federation and explanation quality is non-monotonic: at near-IID (Independent and Identically Distributed Data) and moderate heterogeneity, federated models match or exceed the faithfulness of a centralized baseline, but at extreme heterogeneity, explanations break down entirely, becoming spatially incoherent and, on average, causally misleading. This degradation is not a general cost of federated training but a threshold effect tied to client heterogeneity, and we offer practical guidance for identifying when privacy-preserving deepfake detection can be deployed safely and when its explanations can no longer be trusted. Code and data partitions are available for reproducibility.
