Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 201 references

Survey on AI-Generated Media Detection: From Non-MLLM to MLLM

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This survey claims that AI-generated media detection is best understood as a transition from specialized, domain-specific detectors to general-purpose MLLM-based detectors, and that the field needs a unified map organized by modality and…

desk verdict Useful map, wrong entries: the Non-MLLM-to-MLLM framing genuinely helps organize this subfield, but Table III's dataset statistics contradict the paper's own text, and a reference work with that flaw should be fixed before it is widely cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05240 v2 pith:MQGD2UY6 submitted 2025-02-07 cs.CV

Yueying Zou , Peipei Li , Zekun Li , Huaibo Huang , Xing Cui , Xuannan Liu , Chenghanyu Zhang , Ran He This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords AI-generatedmediadetectionmultimodallargelanguagemodelsdeepfaketextauthenticityimageforgerylocalizationexplainabilitygenerativeAIregulationbenchmarks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey claims that the literature on AI-generated media detection has split into two families—specialized (Non-MLLM) detectors and general-purpose MLLM-based detectors—and that a single structured map of both is missing. It aims to fill that gap by reviewing over 100 studies, organizing them by modality (text, image, video, audio, multimodal) and by task (authenticity, explainability, localization), and adding a comparison of generative-AI regulations. The intended payoff is a reference map that lets researchers see how the field is shifting from narrow, high-precision tools to flexible, explainable models, and where hybrid approaches could combine both.

What carries the argument

The central organizing device is a taxonomy that cross-classifies detection methods by input modality (text, image, video, audio, multimodal) and by task type (authenticity, explainability, localization), with a binary split between Non-MLLM detectors and MLLM-based detectors. Within each cell, methods are grouped by technical strategy—statistical, prompt-engineering, self-consistency, watermarking, fine-tuning, external detectors, reconstruction-error, and others—so that the survey can compare approaches that share a modality and task even when their underlying models differ.

What would settle it

Check the cited dataset releases and the original method papers against Table III and the taxonomy. If, for example, LOKI contains 13,000 questions rather than 18,000, or Fake2M contains far more than 3.6k images, or a substantial share of the cited methods are misassigned to a modality-task cell, then the survey's central claim of being a comprehensive and accurate map would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that current detection research can be systematically viewed as a transition from domain-specific detectors to MLLM-based general-purpose detectors, and that this transition is best understood through a two-axis taxonomy: modality and task. On the task axis, authenticity detection, explainability, and localization form a progression from binary labeling toward richer outputs such as natural-language reasoning and forgery masks. On the method axis, Non-MLLM detectors win on precision and efficiency in constrained settings, while MLLM detectors offer cross-modal reasoning, text-driven prompting, and human-readable explanations at higher computational cost. The paper further claims that the two families are complementary rather than mutually exclusive, so collaboration between them is a useful design direction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the roughly one hundred cited studies and the dataset statistics in the benchmark tables are selected and transcribed accurately enough to make the survey's map reliable; the paper states no search or inclusion protocol, and several table entries conflict with the text, such as Beemo listed as 6.5k versus 19.6k texts, LOKI as 18k versus 13k questions, and Fake2M as 3.6k.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can use the survey's taxonomy to locate a detection problem by modality and task and immediately see which method family applies.
  • The comparison suggests that MLLM-based detectors are not yet reliable standalone judges; prompt format and multiple-choice framing matter more than raw model scale.
  • The analysis points to hybrid designs that couple specialized detectors with MLLMs as a near-term route to combine precision with explainability.
  • The task-level gaps identified—audio and video explainability and localization—define concrete open problems for future work.
  • The regulation comparison implies that future detectors may need to satisfy jurisdiction-specific transparency and labeling requirements, which could shape deployment choices.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to build a benchmark that scores a detector's explanation quality independently of its authenticity accuracy, since the survey notes no unified explainability benchmark exists.
  • The data inconsistencies suggest that a curated, machine-checkable version of the survey's dataset table—with sizes verified against primary sources—would be a useful companion resource.
  • If the specialized-to-generalized transition continues, detector evaluation could shift from binary accuracy to multi-dimensional criteria covering localization precision, explanation faithfulness, and cross-modal consistency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a survey of AI-generated media detection methods, organizing them into Non-MLLM-based (specialized) and MLLM-based (general-purpose) detectors. It reviews methods across text, image, video, audio, and multimodal inputs, and across three task types: authenticity detection, explainability, and localization. It also surveys evaluation datasets, metrics, and the regulatory landscape for generative AI in the EU, US, and China. The central claim is to fill a gap in the literature by providing a systematic, comprehensive reference map of the transition from domain-specific to general-purpose detectors.

Significance. If the survey's contents are accurate, it provides a useful structured map of a rapidly evolving field, covering over 100 recent works and organizing them into a coherent taxonomy. Its explicit identification of open problems (e.g., explainability and localization for video/audio, multimodal collaboration) and the inclusion of a regulation comparison add practical value for researchers and practitioners. However, the value of a survey is determined by the reliability of its entries; the internal inconsistencies in the dataset table, if uncorrected, would mislead readers. The absence of a documented literature selection protocol also limits verifiability of the comprehensiveness claim. Strengths include the breadth of coverage, the multimodal perspective, and the explicit framing of the specialized-to-generalized detector evolution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table III] Table III contains several internal contradictions with the text. Section V.A.1 states Beemo contains 19.6k texts, while Table III lists 6.5k. Section V.A.5 states LOKI contains 13k questions, while Table III lists 18k. Section V.A.2 describes Fake2M as containing AI-generated images and real photographs, but Table III lists its size as 3.6k, which is implausible for a dataset of that name. Section V.A.3 reports GenVideo as containing 1,078,838 generated videos and 1,223,511 real videos, but Table III leaves the GenVideo size blank. These are not cosmetic typos; they are the quantitative facts readers will cite from this survey, and the contradictions undermine its reliability as a reference map.
  2. [Section I / Section V] The paper claims to provide a systematic review and an in-depth review of over 100 studies (Section I), and Section V states that it selects some representative and newest datasets, but no search protocol, inclusion criteria, or verification procedure is provided. Without this information, the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the selected literature cannot be assessed, and readers cannot distinguish a curated selection from a biased one. This is a load-bearing issue for the survey's central claim.
  3. [Table II] Table II swaps the descriptions of the two linguistics-based text detection methods. Section IV.A states that Hamed et al. [102] use repetition patterns of higher-order n-grams, while Gallé et al. [103] use bigram networks. The table lists Hamed et al. as extracting TF-IDF bigrams to train a supervised machine learning algorithm and Gallé et al. as leveraging repeated higher-order n-grams as a detection signal. These entries should be corrected to match the text and the original publications.
  4. [Table III] The dataset size conventions in Table III are inconsistent and under-specified. For example, MIXSET is listed as 3.6k in both the text and the table, but the text specifies 3.6k mixtext instances, while the table's size column appears to mean total instances. For other datasets (e.g., HC3, GenImage), it is unclear whether the size refers to pairs, samples, or files. The table should state the unit of measurement and define the Real Pair column, which currently contains '-' or '%' without explanation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Index Terms] The index terms line contains the typo 'literarture survey'; it should read 'literature survey.'
  2. [Section IV heading] The Section IV heading uses 'Non-LLM,' whereas the rest of the paper and the abstract consistently use 'Non-MLLM.' Please unify the terminology.
  3. [Table I] Several presentation inconsistencies appear in Table I, including 'zhang et al.' (should be 'Zhang et al.') and inconsistent venue formatting such as '[Arxiv’24]' versus '[arXiv’24]'.
  4. [Section V.A.4] The dataset name 'V oiceWukong' appears with an extra space; it should read 'VoiceWukong.'
  5. [Section II.B.3] The phrase 'parameterized by psi' should use the Greek symbol psi rather than the spelled-out form, to match the notation in the equations.
  6. [Section V.B] The phrase 'MLLM-Aided metrics' is introduced but never defined; either define this category explicitly or remove the term to avoid confusion with the open-ended metrics that follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey contains no derivation chain whose conclusions are forced by its own inputs; self-citations are literature entries, not load-bearing premises.

full rationale

This paper is a literature survey, not a derivation or prediction pipeline. Its central claim, that it fills a gap by systematically reviewing Non-MLLM and MLLM detection methods, is supported by the assembled citations and the proposed taxonomy; the taxonomy is an organizational choice rather than a result derived from the paper's own assumptions. No fitted parameters, uniqueness theorems, or predictive equations are present, so there is no step in which an output is equivalent to an input by construction. The authors do cite their own previous works (e.g., [9], [12], [96]), but those citations function as examples of the surveyed literature or as background evidence, not as the justification for the survey's central organizational claims. The absence of a stated search protocol (Sections I and V) and the apparent dataset-statistic inconsistencies between Table III and the prose in Section V (e.g., Beemo listed as 6.5k in Table III but described as 19.6k in Section V.A.1; LOKI listed as 18k in Table III but described as 13k in Section V.A.5) are quality and reliability concerns, not circularity, because they do not make the survey's conclusions true by definition. The paper is self-contained as a review and therefore receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear because the paper makes no quantitative derivation. The load-bearing axioms concern the representativeness and accuracy of the literature coverage, which are not established by a reproducible protocol.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Non-MLLM vs MLLM dichotomy and the authenticity/explainability/localization task axes form a complete and meaningful organization of the field.
    Imposed in Section I and Fig. 1; no justification is given for why this taxonomy is exhaustive or preferable to alternatives.
  • domain assumption The 100+ cited studies are representative of the field and are accurately summarized.
    Section I claims an 'in-depth review of over 100 studies' and Section V says 'We select some representative and newest datasets', but no systematic search, inclusion criteria, or verification procedure is provided.
  • domain assumption The dataset metadata in Table III (sizes, venues, links) is accurate.
    The survey's utility depends on this metadata; Table III conflicts with the text (Beemo 6.5k vs 19.6k, LOKI 18k vs 13k, Fake2M 3.6k) and uses unresolved '[link]' placeholders.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Survey on AI-Generated Media Detection: From Non-MLLM to MLLM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQGD2UY6

@misc{pith2026250205240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Survey on AI-Generated Media Detection: From Non-MLLM to MLLM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQGD2UY6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05240}
}
read the original abstract

The proliferation of AI-generated media poses significant challenges to information authenticity and social trust, making reliable detection methods highly demanded. Methods for detecting AI-generated media have evolved rapidly, paralleling the advancement of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). Current detection approaches can be categorized into two main groups: Non-MLLM-based and MLLM-based methods. The former employs high-precision, domain-specific detectors powered by deep learning techniques, while the latter utilizes general-purpose detectors based on MLLMs that integrate authenticity verification, explainability, and localization capabilities. Despite significant progress in this field, there remains a gap in literature regarding a comprehensive survey that examines the transition from domain-specific to general-purpose detection methods. This paper addresses this gap by providing a systematic review of both approaches, analyzing them from single-modal and multi-modal perspectives. We present a detailed comparative analysis of these categories, examining their methodological similarities and differences. Through this analysis, we explore potential hybrid approaches and identify key challenges in forgery detection, providing direction for future research. Additionally, as MLLMs become increasingly prevalent in detection tasks, ethical and security considerations have emerged as critical global concerns. We examine the regulatory landscape surrounding Generative AI (GenAI) across various jurisdictions, offering valuable insights for researchers and practitioners in this field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Survey at A Glance. (a) Input and Methods. This constitutes the core of our work. We categorize the inputs for AI-generated media detection into five distinct modalities, with task types including authenticity detection, explainability, and localization. We conduct an in-depth review of over 100 studies, classifying them into Non-MLLM detectors and MLLM detectors. (b) Benchmarking. We classify popular and emerging b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrating of MLLM-based detection methodologies for AI-generated text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrating of MLLM-based detection methodologies for AI-generated images. “Mask + Image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustrating of MLLM-based detection methodologies for AI-generated Video and Audio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrating of Non-MLLM-based authenticity detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

201 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [102]

    Detection of chatgpt fake science with the xfakesci learning algorithm

    Ahmed Abdeen Hamed and Xindong Wu. Detection of chatgpt fake science with the xfakesci learning algorithm. Scientific Reports, 14(1):16231, 2024. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 22

    2024

  2. [103]

    Unsupervised and distributional detection of machine-generated text

    Matthias Gall ´e, Jos Rozen, Germ ´an Kruszewski, and Hady Elsahar. Unsupervised and distributional detection of machine-generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02878 , 2021

    arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    Hello gpt-4o

    OpenAI. Hello gpt-4o. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/, 2024

    2024

  4. [2]

    Improving image generation with better captions

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al. Improving image generation with better captions. Computer Science, 2(3):8, 2023

    2023

  5. [3]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  6. [4]

    Video generation models as world simulators

    Tim Brooks, Bill Peebles, Connor Holmes, Will DePue, Yufei Guo, Li Jing, David Schnurr, Joe Taylor, Troy Luhman, Eric Luhman, et al. Video generation models as world simulators. 2024. https://openai.com/ research/video-generation-models-as-world-simulators, 2024

    2024

  7. [5]

    Pluralistic aging diffusion autoencoder

    Peipei Li, Rui Wang, Huaibo Huang, Ran He, and Zhaofeng He. Pluralistic aging diffusion autoencoder. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 22556–22566. IEEE Computer Society, 2023

    2023

  8. [6]

    Global and local consistent wavelet-domain age synthesis

    Peipei Li, Yibo Hu, Ran He, and Zhenan Sun. Global and local consistent wavelet-domain age synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , 14(11):2943–2957, 2019

    2019

Show all 201 references
  1. [7]

    Localize, understand, collaborate: Semantic-aware dragging via intention reasoner

    Xing Cui, Peipei Li, Zekun Li, Xuannan Liu, Yueying Zou, and Zhaofeng He. Localize, understand, collaborate: Semantic-aware dragging via intention reasoner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00432 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Combating misinformation in the era of generative ai models

    Danni Xu, Shaojing Fan, and Mohan Kankanhalli. Combating misinformation in the era of generative ai models. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 9291– 9298, 2023

    2023

  3. [9]

    Deep learning technology for face forgery detection: A survey

    Lixia Ma, Puning Yang, Yuting Xu, Ziming Yang, Peipei Li, and Huaibo Huang. Deep learning technology for face forgery detection: A survey. Neurocomputing, page 129055, 2024

    2024

  4. [10]

    Communicating the cultural other: Trust and bias in generative ai and large language models

    Christopher J Jenks. Communicating the cultural other: Trust and bias in generative ai and large language models. Applied Linguistics Review, 2024

    2024

  5. [11]

    Generative ai meets copyright

    Pamela Samuelson. Generative ai meets copyright. Science, 381(6654):158–161, 2023

    2023

  6. [12]

    Jailbreak attacks and defenses against multimodal generative models: A survey

    Xuannan Liu, Xing Cui, Peipei Li, Zekun Li, Huaibo Huang, Shuhan Xia, Miaoxuan Zhang, Yueying Zou, and Ran He. Jailbreak attacks and defenses against multimodal generative models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09259, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Online detection of ai-generated images

    David C Epstein, Ishan Jain, Oliver Wang, and Richard Zhang. Online detection of ai-generated images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 382–392, 2023

    2023

  8. [14]

    An empirical study of ai-generated text detection tools

    A Akram. An empirical study of ai-generated text detection tools. Adv Mach Lear Art Inte , 4(2):44–55, 2023

    2023

  9. [15]

    Explainable and interpretable multimodal large language models: A comprehensive survey

    Yunkai Dang, Kaichen Huang, Jiahao Huo, Yibo Yan, Sirui Huang, Dongrui Liu, Mengxi Gao, Jie Zhang, Chen Qian, Kun Wang, et al. Explainable and interpretable multimodal large language models: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02104 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Detecting multimedia generated by large ai models: A survey

    Li Lin, Neeraj Gupta, Yue Zhang, Hainan Ren, Chun-Hao Liu, Feng Ding, Xin Wang, Xin Li, Luisa Verdoliva, and Shu Hu. Detecting multimedia generated by large ai models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00045, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [17]

    A survey of defenses against ai-generated visual media: Detection, disruption, and authentication

    Jingyi Deng, Chenhao Lin, Zhengyu Zhao, Shuai Liu, Qian Wang, and Chao Shen. A survey of defenses against ai-generated visual media: Detection, disruption, and authentication. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10575, 2024

    2024

  12. [18]

    Fake artificial intelligence generated contents (faigc): A survey of theories, detection methods, and opportunities

    Xiaomin Yu, Yezhaohui Wang, Yanfang Chen, Zhen Tao, Dinghao Xi, Shichao Song, Simin Niu, and Zhiyu Li. Fake artificial intelligence generated contents (faigc): A survey of theories, detection methods, and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00711 , 2024. JOURNAL OF LATEX ...

    2024 arXiv

  13. [19]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Claude 3.5: Sonnet

    Anthropic. Claude 3.5: Sonnet. https://www.anthropic.com/news/ claude-3-5-sonnet, 2023

    2023

  15. [21]

    All the news that’s fit to fabricate: Ai-generated text as a tool of media misinformation

    Sarah Kreps, R Miles McCain, and Miles Brundage. All the news that’s fit to fabricate: Ai-generated text as a tool of media misinformation. Journal of experimental political science , 9(1):104–117, 2022

    2022

  16. [22]

    Program code generation with generative ais

    Baskhad Idrisov and Tim Schlippe. Program code generation with generative ais. Algorithms, 17(2):62, 2024

    2024

  17. [23]

    Collage is the new writing: Exploring the fragmentation of text and user interfaces in ai tools

    Daniel Buschek. Collage is the new writing: Exploring the fragmentation of text and user interfaces in ai tools. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference , pages 2719–2737, 2024

    2024

  18. [24]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  19. [25]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  20. [26]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  21. [27]

    DeepMind

    G. DeepMind. Imagen 2. http://tinyurl.com/3pakj3mk, 2023

    2023

  22. [28]

    Midjourney

    MidJourney. Midjourney. https://mid-journey.ai/, 2023

    2023

  23. [29]

    Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models

    Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 36, 2024

    2024

  25. [31]

    Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Make- a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data

    Uriel Singer, Adam Polyak, Thomas Hayes, Xi Yin, Jie An, Songyang Zhang, Qiyuan Hu, Harry Yang, Oron Ashual, Oran Gafni, et al. Make- a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14792, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Dall·e 2

    OpenAI. Dall·e 2. https://openai.com/index/dall-e-2/, 2023

    2023

  28. [34]

    Google DeepMind. Veo. https://deepmind.google/technologies/veo/, 2024

    2024

  29. [35]

    Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram V oleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Llama-vid: An image is worth 2 tokens in large language models

    Yanwei Li, Chengyao Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Llama-vid: An image is worth 2 tokens in large language models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 323–340. Springer, 2025

    2025

  31. [37]

    Mvbench: A comprehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark

    Kunchang Li, Yali Wang, Yinan He, Yizhuo Li, Yi Wang, Yi Liu, Zun Wang, Jilan Xu, Guo Chen, Ping Luo, et al. Mvbench: A comprehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 22195–2...

    2024

  32. [38]

    Diff-tts: A denoising diffusion model for text-to- speech

    Myeonghun Jeong, Hyeongju Kim, Sung Jun Cheon, Byoung Jin Choi, and Nam Soo Kim. Diff-tts: A denoising diffusion model for text-to- speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.01409 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Audioldm: text-to-audio generation with latent diffusion models

    Haohe Liu, Zehua Chen, Yi Yuan, Xinhao Mei, Xubo Liu, Danilo Mandic, Wenwu Wang, and Mark D Plumbley. Audioldm: text-to-audio generation with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 21450–21474, 2023

    2023

  34. [40]

    Make-an-audio: text-to-audio generation with prompt-enhanced diffusion models

    Rongjie Huang, Jiawei Huang, Dongchao Yang, Yi Ren, Luping liu, Mingze Li, Zhenhui Ye, Jinglin Liu, Xiang Yin, and Zhou Zhao. Make-an-audio: text-to-audio generation with prompt-enhanced diffusion models. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning,...

    2023

  35. [41]

    Text-to-audio generation using instruction-tuned llm and latent diffusion model

    Deepanway Ghosal, Navonil Majumder, Ambuj Mehrish, and Soujanya Poria. Text-to-audio generation using instruction-tuned llm and latent diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13731 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Wavjourney: Compositional audio creation with large language models

    Xubo Liu, Zhongkai Zhu, Haohe Liu, Yi Yuan, Meng Cui, Qiushi Huang, Jinhua Liang, Yin Cao, Qiuqiang Kong, Mark D Plumbley, et al. Wavjourney: Compositional audio creation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14335 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Uniaudio: An audio foundation model toward universal audio generation

    Dongchao Yang, Jinchuan Tian, Xu Tan, Rongjie Huang, Songxiang Liu, Xuankai Chang, Jiatong Shi, Sheng Zhao, Jiang Bian, Xixin Wu, et al. Uniaudio: An audio foundation model toward universal audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00704 , 2023

    arXiv

  38. [44]

    Explainability for large language models: A survey

    Haiyan Zhao, Hanjie Chen, Fan Yang, Ninghao Liu, Huiqi Deng, Hengyi Cai, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, and Mengnan Du. Explainability for large language models: A survey. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(2):1–38, 2024

    2024

  39. [45]

    Howkgpt: Investigating the detection of chatgpt- generated university student homework through context-aware perplexity analysis

    Christoforos Vasilatos, Manaar Alam, Talal Rahwan, Yasir Zaki, and Michail Maniatakos. Howkgpt: Investigating the detection of chatgpt- generated university student homework through context-aware perplexity analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18226 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Dna-gpt: Divergent n-gram analysis for training-free detection of gpt-generated text

    Xianjun Yang, Wei Cheng, Yue Wu, Linda Petzold, William Yang Wang, and Haifeng Chen. Dna-gpt: Divergent n-gram analysis for training-free detection of gpt-generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17359 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Detectllm: Leveraging log rank information for zero-shot detection of machine- generated text

    Jinyan Su, Terry Yue Zhuo, Di Wang, and Preslav Nakov. Detectllm: Leveraging log rank information for zero-shot detection of machine- generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05540 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature

    Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 24950–24962. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  43. [49]

    Fast-detectgpt: Efficient zero-shot detection of machine- generated text via conditional probability curvature

    Guangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang, and Yue Zhang. Fast-detectgpt: Efficient zero-shot detection of machine- generated text via conditional probability curvature. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05130, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Loki: A comprehensive synthetic data detection benchmark using large multimodal models

    Junyan Ye, Baichuan Zhou, Zilong Huang, Junan Zhang, Tianyi Bai, Hengrui Kang, Jun He, Honglin Lin, Zihao Wang, Tong Wu, et al. Loki: A comprehensive synthetic data detection benchmark using large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09732 , 2024

    arXiv

  45. [51]

    Fighting fire with fire: can chatgpt detect ai-generated text? ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 25(2):14–21, 2024

    Amrita Bhattacharjee and Huan Liu. Fighting fire with fire: can chatgpt detect ai-generated text? ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 25(2):14–21, 2024

    2024

  46. [52]

    Detection vs

    Yuehan Zhang, Yongqiang Ma, Jiawei Liu, Xiaozhong Liu, Xiaofeng Wang, and Wei Lu. Detection vs. anti-detection: Is text generated by ai detectable? In International Conference on Information , pages 209–222. Springer, 2024

    2024

  47. [53]

    Detectgpt-sc: Improving detection of text generated by large language models through self- consistency with masked predictions

    Rongsheng Wang, Qi Li, and Sihong Xie. Detectgpt-sc: Improving detection of text generated by large language models through self- consistency with masked predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14479 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Simllm: Detecting sentences generated by large language models using similarity between the generation and its re-generation

    Hoang-Quoc Nguyen-Son, Minh-Son Dao, and Koji Zettsu. Simllm: Detecting sentences generated by large language models using similarity between the generation and its re-generation. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages...

    2024

  49. [55]

    Beat llms at their own game: Zero-shot llm-generated text detection via querying chatgpt

    Biru Zhu, Lifan Yuan, Ganqu Cui, Yangyi Chen, Chong Fu, Bingxiang He, Yangdong Deng, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Ming Gu. Beat llms at their own game: Zero-shot llm-generated text detection via querying chatgpt. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in N...

    2023

  50. [56]

    Raidar: generative ai detection via rewriting

    Chengzhi Mao, Carl V ondrick, Hao Wang, and Junfeng Yang. Raidar: generative ai detection via rewriting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12970 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Learning to rewrite: Generalized detection of LLM-generated text

    Wei Hao, Ran Li, Weiliang Zhao, Junfeng Yang, and Chengzhi Mao. Learning to rewrite: Generalized detection of LLM-generated text. In arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04237 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Llm-as-a-coauthor: Can mixed human-written and machine-generated text be detected? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024 , pages 409–436, 2024

    Qihui Zhang, Chujie Gao, Dongping Chen, Yue Huang, Yixin Huang, Zhenyang Sun, Shilin Zhang, Weiye Li, Zhengyan Fu, Yao Wan, et al. Llm-as-a-coauthor: Can mixed human-written and machine-generated text be detected? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: N...

    2024

  53. [59]

    Llm-detectaive: a tool for fine-grained machine-generated text detection

    Mervat Abassy, Kareem Elozeiri, Alexander Aziz, Minh Ngoc Ta, Raj Vardhan Tomar, Bimarsha Adhikari, Saad El Dine Ahmed, Yuxia Wang, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Zhuohan Xie, et al. Llm-detectaive: a tool for fine-grained machine-generated text detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04284, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Beemo: Benchmark of expert-edited machine-generated outputs

    Ekaterina Artemova, Jason Lucas, Saranya Venkatraman, Jooyoung Lee, Sergei Tilga, Adaku Uchendu, and Vladislav Mikhailov. Beemo: Benchmark of expert-edited machine-generated outputs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04032, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Beyond binary: Towards fine-grained llm-generated text detection via role recognition and involvement measurement

    Zihao Cheng, Li Zhou, Feng Jiang, Benyou Wang, and Haizhou Li. Beyond binary: Towards fine-grained llm-generated text detection via role recognition and involvement measurement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14259, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  56. [62]

    A watermark for large language models

    John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz, Ian Miers, and Tom Goldstein. A watermark for large language models. In JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 21 International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 17061–17084. PMLR, 2023

    2021

  57. [63]

    On the reliability of watermarks for large language models

    John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Manli Shu, Khalid Saifullah, Kezhi Kong, Kasun Fernando, Aniruddha Saha, Micah Goldblum, and Tom Goldstein. On the reliability of watermarks for large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representati...

    2024

  58. [64]

    Undetectable watermarks for language models

    Miranda Christ, Sam Gunn, and Or Zamir. Undetectable watermarks for language models. In The Thirty Seventh Annual Conference on Learning Theory, pages 1125–1139. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  59. [65]

    Provable robust watermarking for ai-generated text

    Xuandong Zhao, Prabhanjan Vijendra Ananth, Lei Li, and Yu-Xiang Wang. Provable robust watermarking for ai-generated text. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024

    2024

  60. [66]

    Personamark: Personalized llm watermarking for model protection and user attribution

    Yuehan Zhang, Peizhuo Lv, Yinpeng Liu, Yongqiang Ma, Wei Lu, Xiaofeng Wang, Xiaozhong Liu, and Jiawei Liu. Personamark: Personalized llm watermarking for model protection and user attribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09739 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  61. [67]

    ai vs humans

    Jiazhou Ji, Ruizhe Li, Shujun Li, Jie Guo, Weidong Qiu, Zheng Huang, Chiyu Chen, Xiaoyu Jiang, and Xinru Lu. Detecting machine-generated texts: Not just “ ai vs humans” and explainability is complicated. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18259, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Gigacheck: Detecting llm-generated content

    Irina Tolstykh, Aleksandra Tsybina, Sergey Yakubson, Aleksandr Gordeev, Vladimir Dokholyan, and Maksim Kuprashevich. Gigacheck: Detecting llm-generated content. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23728 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  63. [69]

    Shield: An evaluation benchmark for face spoofing and forgery detection with multimodal large language models

    Yichen Shi, Yuhao Gao, Yingxin Lai, Hongyang Wang, Jun Feng, Lei He, Jun Wan, Changsheng Chen, Zitong Yu, and Xiaochun Cao. Shield: An evaluation benchmark for face spoofing and forgery detection with multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04178 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Can chatgpt detect deepfakes? a study of using multimodal large language models for media forensics

    Shan Jia, Reilin Lyu, Kangran Zhao, Yize Chen, Zhiyuan Yan, Yan Ju, Chuanbo Hu, Xin Li, Baoyuan Wu, and Siwei Lyu. Can chatgpt detect deepfakes? a study of using multimodal large language models for media forensics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision ...

    2024

  65. [71]

    Visualcritic: Making lmms perceive visual quality like humans

    Zhipeng Huang, Zhizheng Zhang, Yiting Lu, Zheng-Jun Zha, Zhibo Chen, and Baining Guo. Visualcritic: Making lmms perceive visual quality like humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12806 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Forgerygpt: Multimodal large language model for explainable image forgery detection and localization

    Jiawei Li, Fanrui Zhang, Jiaying Zhu, Esther Sun, Qiang Zhang, and Zheng-Jun Zha. Forgerygpt: Multimodal large language model for explainable image forgery detection and localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10238, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Editscout: Locating forged regions from diffusion-based edited images with multimodal llm

    Quang Nguyen, Truong Vu, Trong-Tung Nguyen, Yuxin Wen, Preston K Robinette, Taylor T Johnson, Tom Goldstein, Anh Tran, and Khoi Nguyen. Editscout: Locating forged regions from diffusion-based edited images with multimodal llm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03809 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  68. [74]

    X 2-DFD: A framework for e X plainable and e X tendable Deepfake Detection

    Yize Chen, Zhiyuan Yan, Siwei Lyu, and Baoyuan Wu. X 2-DFD: A framework for e X plainable and e X tendable Deepfake Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06126 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Ffaa: Multimodal large language model based explainable open- world face forgery analysis assistant

    Zhengchao Huang, Bin Xia, Zicheng Lin, Zhun Mou, and Wenming Yang. Ffaa: Multimodal large language model based explainable open- world face forgery analysis assistant. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10072 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  70. [76]

    Fakeshield: Explainable image forgery detection and localization via multi-modal large language models

    Zhipei Xu, Xuanyu Zhang, Runyi Li, Zecheng Tang, Qing Huang, and Jian Zhang. Fakeshield: Explainable image forgery detection and localization via multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02761, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  71. [77]

    Sida: Social media image deepfake detection, localization and explanation with large multimodal model

    Zhenglin Huang, Jinwei Hu, Xiangtai Li, Yiwei He, Xingyu Zhao, Bei Peng, Baoyuan Wu, Xiaowei Huang, and Guangliang Cheng. Sida: Social media image deepfake detection, localization and explanation with large multimodal model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04292 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  72. [78]

    A large-scale interpretable multi-modality benchmark for facial image forgery localization

    Jingchun Lian, Lingyu Liu, Yaxiong Wang, Yujiao Wu, Li Zhu, and Zhedong Zheng. A large-scale interpretable multi-modality benchmark for facial image forgery localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19685 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  73. [79]

    Forgerysleuth: Empowering multimodal large language models for image manipulation detection

    Zhihao Sun, Haoran Jiang, Haoran Chen, Yixin Cao, Xipeng Qiu, Zux- uan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Forgerysleuth: Empowering multimodal large language models for image manipulation detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19466, 2024

    2024

  74. [80]

    On learning multi-modal forgery representation for diffusion generated video detection

    Xiufeng Song, Xiao Guo, Jiache Zhang, Qirui Li, Lei Bai, Xiaoming Liu, Guangtao Zhai, and Xiaohong Liu. On learning multi-modal forgery representation for diffusion generated video detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23623, 2024

    arXiv

  75. [81]

    Vane-bench: Video anomaly evaluation benchmark for conversational lmms

    Rohit Bharadwaj, Hanan Gani, Muzammal Naseer, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Salman Khan. Vane-bench: Video anomaly evaluation benchmark for conversational lmms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10326 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  76. [82]

    Video watermarking: Safeguarding your video from (unauthorized) annotations by video-based llms

    Jinmin Li, Kuofeng Gao, Yang Bai, Jingyun Zhang, and Shu-Tao Xia. Video watermarking: Safeguarding your video from (unauthorized) annotations by video-based llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02411 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  77. [83]

    Sonics: Synthetic or not–identifying counterfeit songs

    Md Awsafur Rahman, Zaber Ibn Abdul Hakim, Najibul Haque Sarker, Bishmoy Paul, and Shaikh Anowarul Fattah. Sonics: Synthetic or not–identifying counterfeit songs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14080 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  78. [84]

    Sniffer: Multimodal large language model for explainable out-of-context misin- formation detection

    Peng Qi, Zehong Yan, Wynne Hsu, and Mong Li Lee. Sniffer: Multimodal large language model for explainable out-of-context misin- formation detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 13052–13062, 2024

    2024

  79. [85]

    Cheap-fake detection with llm using prompt engineering

    Guangyang Wu, Weijie Wu, Xiaohong Liu, Kele Xu, Tianjiao Wan, and Wenyi Wang. Cheap-fake detection with llm using prompt engineering. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW), pages 105–109. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  80. [86]

    How good is chatgpt at audiovisual deepfake detection: A comparative study of chatgpt, ai models and human perception

    Sahibzada Adil Shahzad, Ammarah Hashmi, Yan-Tsung Peng, Yu Tsao, and Hsin-Min Wang. How good is chatgpt at audiovisual deepfake detection: A comparative study of chatgpt, ai models and human perception. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09266 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  81. [87]

    V2a-mark: Versatile deep visual-audio watermarking for manipulation localization and copyright protection

    Xuanyu Zhang, Youmin Xu, Runyi Li, Jiwen Yu, Weiqi Li, Zhipei Xu, and Jian Zhang. V2a-mark: Versatile deep visual-audio watermarking for manipulation localization and copyright protection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16824, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  82. [88]

    Three ways chatgpt helps me in my academic writing

    Dritjon Gruda. Three ways chatgpt helps me in my academic writing. Nature, 10, 2024

    2024

  83. [89]

    Fake it till you make it: Curricular dynamic forgery augmentations towards general deepfake detection

    Yuzhen Lin, Wentang Song, Bin Li, Yuezun Li, Jiangqun Ni, Han Chen, and Qiushi Li. Fake it till you make it: Curricular dynamic forgery augmentations towards general deepfake detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 104–122. Springer, 2025

    2025

  84. [90]

    Videochat: Chat-centric video understanding

    KunChang Li, Yinan He, Yi Wang, Yizhuo Li, Wenhai Wang, Ping Luo, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. Videochat: Chat-centric video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06355 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  85. [91]

    Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models

    Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  86. [92]

    Video-llama: An instruction- tuned audio-visual language model for video understanding

    Hang Zhang, Xin Li, and Lidong Bing. Video-llama: An instruction- tuned audio-visual language model for video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02858, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  87. [93]

    What matters in detecting ai-generated videos like sora? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19568, 2024

    Chirui Chang, Zhengzhe Liu, Xiaoyang Lyu, and Xiaojuan Qi. What matters in detecting ai-generated videos like sora? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19568, 2024

    2024

  88. [94]

    Qwen-audio: Advancing universal audio understanding via unified large-scale audio-language models

    Yunfei Chu, Jin Xu, Xiaohuan Zhou, Shiliang Yang, Qianand Zhang, Zhijie Yan, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. Qwen-audio: Advancing universal audio understanding via unified large-scale audio-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07919 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  89. [95]

    video-salmonn: Speech-enhanced audio-visual large language models

    Guangzhi Sun, Wenyi Yu, Changli Tang, Xianzhao Chen, Tian Tan, Wei Li, Lu Lu, Zejun Ma, Yuxuan Wang, and Chao Zhang. video-salmonn: Speech-enhanced audio-visual large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15704, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  90. [96]

    Fka-owl: Ad- vancing multimodal fake news detection through knowledge-augmented lvlms

    Xuannan Liu, Peipei Li, Huaibo Huang, Zekun Li, Xing Cui, Jiahao Liang, Lixiong Qin, Weihong Deng, and Zhaofeng He. Fka-owl: Ad- vancing multimodal fake news detection through knowledge-augmented lvlms. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pag...

    2024

  91. [97]

    T2iw: Joint text to image & watermark generation

    An-An Liu, Guokai Zhang, Yuting Su, Ning Xu, Yongdong Zhang, and Lanjun Wang. T2iw: Joint text to image & watermark generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03815 , 2023

    2023

  92. [98]

    Watermarking vision-language pre-trained models for multi-modal embedding as a service

    Yuanmin Tang, Jing Yu, Keke Gai, Xiangyan Qu, Yue Hu, Gang Xiong, and Qi Wu. Watermarking vision-language pre-trained models for multi-modal embedding as a service. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05863 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  93. [99]

    Detective: Detecting ai-generated text via multi-level contrastive learning

    Xun Guo, Shan Zhang, Yongxin He, Ting Zhang, Wanquan Feng, Haibin Huang, and Chongyang Ma. Detective: Detecting ai-generated text via multi-level contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20964, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  94. [100]

    Detecting and unmasking ai-generated texts through explainable artificial intelligence using stylistic features

    Aditya Shah, Prateek Ranka, Urmi Dedhia, Shruti Prasad, Siddhi Muni, and Kiran Bhowmick. Detecting and unmasking ai-generated texts through explainable artificial intelligence using stylistic features. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications , 14(10), 2023

    2023

  95. [101]

    Stylometric detection of ai-generated text in twitter timelines

    Tharindu Kumarage, Joshua Garland, Amrita Bhattacharjee, Kirill Trapeznikov, Scott Ruston, and Huan Liu. Stylometric detection of ai-generated text in twitter timelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03697 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Robust multi- bit natural language watermarking through invariant features

    KiYoon Yoo, Wonhyuk Ahn, Jiho Jang, and Nojun Kwak. Robust multi- bit natural language watermarking through invariant features. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01904, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Deep- textmark: A deep learning-driven text watermarking approach for identifying large language model generated text

    Travis Munyer, Abdullah Tanvir, Arjon Das, and Xin Zhong. Deep- textmark: A deep learning-driven text watermarking approach for identifying large language model generated text. IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  98. [106]

    Watermarking text generated by black-box language models

    Xi Yang, Kejiang Chen, Weiming Zhang, Chang Liu, Yuang Qi, Jie Zhang, Han Fang, and Nenghai Yu. Watermarking text generated by black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08883 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Adversarial watermarking transformer: Towards tracing text provenance with data hiding

    Sahar Abdelnabi and Mario Fritz. Adversarial watermarking transformer: Towards tracing text provenance with data hiding. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) , pages 121–140. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  100. [108]

    Remark-llm: A robust and efficient watermarking framework for generative large language models

    Ruisi Zhang, Shehzeen Samarah Hussain, Paarth Neekhara, and Farinaz Koushanfar. Remark-llm: A robust and efficient watermarking framework for generative large language models. In 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24) , pages 1813–1830, 2024

    2024

  101. [109]

    Chatgpt or human? detect and explain

    Sandra Mitrovi ´c, Davide Andreoletti, and Omran Ayoub. Chatgpt or human? detect and explain. explaining decisions of machine learning model for detecting short chatgpt-generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13852, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Machine- generated text localization

    Zhongping Zhang, Wenda Qin, and Bryan A Plummer. Machine- generated text localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11744 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Unveiling large language models generated texts: A multi-level fine-grained detection framework

    Zhen Tao, Zhiyu Li, Runyu Chen, Dinghao Xi, and Wei Xu. Unveiling large language models generated texts: A multi-level fine-grained detection framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14231 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Is this generated person existed in real-world? fine-grained detecting and calibrating abnormal human-body

    Zeqing Wang, Qingyang Ma, Wentao Wan, Haojie Li, Keze Wang, and Yonghong Tian. Is this generated person existed in real-world? fine-grained detecting and calibrating abnormal human-body. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14205, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Lighting (in) consistency of paint by text

    Hany Farid. Lighting (in) consistency of paint by text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.13744, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Shadows don’t lie and lines can’t bend! generative models don’t know projective geometry

    Ayush Sarkar, Hanlin Mai, Amitabh Mahapatra, Svetlana Lazebnik, David A Forsyth, and Anand Bhattad. Shadows don’t lie and lines can’t bend! generative models don’t know projective geometry... for now. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Rec...

    2024

  107. [115]

    A sanity check for ai-generated image detection

    Shilin Yan, Ouxiang Li, Jiayin Cai, Yanbin Hao, Xiaolong Jiang, Yao Hu, and Weidi Xie. A sanity check for ai-generated image detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19435 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Learning on gradients: Generalized artifacts representation for gan-generated images detection

    Chuangchuang Tan, Yao Zhao, Shikui Wei, Guanghua Gu, and Yunchao Wei. Learning on gradients: Generalized artifacts representation for gan-generated images detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 12105– 12114, 2023

    2023

  109. [117]

    Ausome: authenticating social media images using frequency analysis

    Nihal Poredi, Deearj Nagothu, and Yu Chen. Ausome: authenticating social media images using frequency analysis. In Disruptive Technolo- gies in Information Sciences VII , volume 12542, pages 44–56. SPIE, 2023

    2023

  110. [118]

    Wavelet- packets for deepfake image analysis and detection

    Moritz Wolter, Felix Blanke, Raoul Heese, and Jochen Garcke. Wavelet- packets for deepfake image analysis and detection. Machine Learning, 111(11):4295–4327, 2022

    2022

  111. [119]

    Synthbuster: Towards detection of diffusion model generated images

    Quentin Bammey. Synthbuster: Towards detection of diffusion model generated images. IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing , 2023

    2023

  112. [120]

    Leveraging frequency analysis for deep fake image recognition

    Joel Frank, Thorsten Eisenhofer, Lea Sch ¨onherr, Asja Fischer, Dorothea Kolossa, and Thorsten Holz. Leveraging frequency analysis for deep fake image recognition. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3247–3258. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  113. [121]

    Intriguing properties of synthetic images: from generative adversarial networks to diffusion models

    Riccardo Corvi, Davide Cozzolino, Giovanni Poggi, Koki Nagano, and Luisa Verdoliva. Intriguing properties of synthetic images: from generative adversarial networks to diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages ...

    2023

  114. [122]

    Exposing the fake: Effective diffusion-generated images detection

    Ruipeng Ma, Jinhao Duan, Fei Kong, Xiaoshuang Shi, and Kaidi Xu. Exposing the fake: Effective diffusion-generated images detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06272, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  115. [123]

    E3: Ensemble of expert embedders for adapting synthetic image detectors to new generators using limited data

    Aref Azizpour, Tai D Nguyen, Manil Shrestha, Kaidi Xu, Edward Kim, and Matthew C Stamm. E3: Ensemble of expert embedders for adapting synthetic image detectors to new generators using limited data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogn...

    2024

  116. [124]

    Dire for diffusion-generated image detection

    Zhendong Wang, Jianmin Bao, Wengang Zhou, Weilun Wang, Hezhen Hu, Hong Chen, and Houqiang Li. Dire for diffusion-generated image detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 22445–22455, 2023

    2023

  117. [125]

    Aeroblade: Training-free detection of latent diffusion images using autoencoder reconstruction error

    Jonas Ricker, Denis Lukovnikov, and Asja Fischer. Aeroblade: Training-free detection of latent diffusion images using autoencoder reconstruction error. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 9130–9140, 2024

    2024

  118. [126]

    Fire: Robust detection of diffusion-generated images via frequency-guided reconstruction error

    Beilin Chu, Xuan Xu, Xin Wang, Yufei Zhang, Weike You, and Linna Zhou. Fire: Robust detection of diffusion-generated images via frequency-guided reconstruction error. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07140, 2024

    2024

  119. [127]

    Drct: Diffusion reconstruction contrastive training towards universal detection of diffusion generated images

    Baoying Chen, Jishen Zeng, Jianquan Yang, and Rui Yang. Drct: Diffusion reconstruction contrastive training towards universal detection of diffusion generated images. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  120. [128]

    Semgir: Semantic-guided image regeneration based method for ai-generated image detection and attribution

    Xiao Yu, Kejiang Chen, Kai Zeng, Han Fang, Zijin Yang, Xiuwei Shang, Yuang Qi, Weiming Zhang, and Nenghai Yu. Semgir: Semantic-guided image regeneration based method for ai-generated image detection and attribution. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Mu...

    2024

  121. [129]

    Editguard: Versatile image watermarking for tamper localization and copyright protection

    Xuanyu Zhang, Runyi Li, Jiwen Yu, Youmin Xu, Weiqi Li, and Jian Zhang. Editguard: Versatile image watermarking for tamper localization and copyright protection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11964–11974, 2024

    2024

  122. [130]

    Diffusionshield: A watermark for copyright protection against generative diffusion models

    Yingqian Cui, Jie Ren, Han Xu, Pengfei He, Hui Liu, Lichao Sun, Yue Xing, and Jiliang Tang. Diffusionshield: A watermark for copyright protection against generative diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04642, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Robust image watermarking using stable diffusion

    Lijun Zhang, Xiao Liu, Antoni Viros Martin, Cindy Xiong Bearfield, Yuriy Brun, and Hui Guan. Robust image watermarking using stable diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04247 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Lawa: Using latent space for in-generation image watermarking

    Ahmad Rezaei, Mohammad Akbari, Saeed Ranjbar Alvar, Arezou Fatemi, and Yong Zhang. Lawa: Using latent space for in-generation image watermarking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05868 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Wmadapter: Adding watermark control to latent diffusion models

    Hai Ci, Yiren Song, Pei Yang, Jinheng Xie, and Mike Zheng Shou. Wmadapter: Adding watermark control to latent diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08337, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Cifake: Image classification and explainable identification of ai-generated synthetic images

    Jordan J Bird and Ahmad Lotfi. Cifake: Image classification and explainable identification of ai-generated synthetic images. IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  127. [135]

    Asap: Interpretable analysis and summarization of ai-generated image patterns at scale

    Jinbin Huang, Chen Chen, Aditi Mishra, Bum Chul Kwon, Zhicheng Liu, and Chris Bryan. Asap: Interpretable analysis and summarization of ai-generated image patterns at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02990 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Da-hfnet: Progressive fine-grained forgery image detection and localization based on dual attention

    Yang Liu, Xiaofei Li, Jun Zhang, Shengze Hu, and Jun Lei. Da-hfnet: Progressive fine-grained forgery image detection and localization based on dual attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01489 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Diffforensics: Leveraging diffusion prior to image forgery detection and localization

    Zeqin Yu, Jiangqun Ni, Yuzhen Lin, Haoyi Deng, and Bin Li. Diffforensics: Leveraging diffusion prior to image forgery detection and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 12765–12774, 2024

    2024

  130. [138]

    Mixture-of-noises enhanced forgery-aware predictor for multi-face manipulation detection and localization

    Changtao Miao, Qi Chu, Tao Gong, Zhentao Tan, Zhenchao Jin, Wanyi Zhuang, Man Luo, Honggang Hu, and Nenghai Yu. Mixture-of-noises enhanced forgery-aware predictor for multi-face manipulation detection and localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02306 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Language- guided hierarchical fine-grained image forgery detection and localization

    Xiao Guo, Xiaohong Liu, Iacopo Masi, and Xiaoming Liu. Language- guided hierarchical fine-grained image forgery detection and localization. International Journal of Computer Vision , pages 1–22, 2024

    2024

  132. [140]

    Safire: Segment any forged image region

    Myung-Joon Kwon, Wonjun Lee, Seung-Hun Nam, Minji Son, and Changick Kim. Safire: Segment any forged image region. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08197, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Human action clips: Detecting ai- generated human motion

    Matyas Bohacek and Hany Farid. Human action clips: Detecting ai- generated human motion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00526 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  134. [142]

    Ai-generated video detection via spatio-temporal anomaly learning

    Jianfa Bai, Man Lin, and Gang Cao. Ai-generated video detection via spatio-temporal anomaly learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16638 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  135. [143]

    Turns out i’m not real: Towards robust detection of ai-generated videos

    Qingyuan Liu, Pengyuan Shi, Yun-Yun Tsai, Chengzhi Mao, and Junfeng Yang. Turns out i’m not real: Towards robust detection of ai-generated videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09601 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  136. [144]

    Exposing ai-generated videos: A benchmark dataset and a local- and-global temporal defect based detection method

    Peisong He, Leyao Zhu, Jiaxing Li, Shiqi Wang, and Haoliang Li. Exposing ai-generated videos: A benchmark dataset and a local- and-global temporal defect based detection method. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04133, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Generalizing deepfake video detection with plug-and-play: Video-level blending and spatiotemporal adapter tuning

    Zhiyuan Yan, Yandan Zhao, Shen Chen, Xinghe Fu, Taiping Yao, Shouhong Ding, and Li Yuan. Generalizing deepfake video detection with plug-and-play: Video-level blending and spatiotemporal adapter tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17065 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Distinguish any fake videos: Unleashing JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL

    Lichuan Ji, Yingqi Lin, Zhenhua Huang, Yan Han, Xiaogang Xu, Jiafei Wu, Chong Wang, and Zhe Liu. Distinguish any fake videos: Unleashing JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 23 the power of large-scale data and motion features. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15...

    2021 arXiv

  139. [147]

    Demamba: Ai-generated video detection on million-scale genvideo benchmark

    Haoxing Chen, Yan Hong, Zizheng Huang, Zhuoer Xu, Zhangxuan Gu, Yaohui Li, Jun Lan, Huijia Zhu, Jianfu Zhang, Weiqiang Wang, et al. Demamba: Ai-generated video detection on million-scale genvideo benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19707 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  140. [148]

    Beyond deepfake images: Detecting ai-generated videos

    Danial Samadi Vahdati, Tai D Nguyen, Aref Azizpour, and Matthew C Stamm. Beyond deepfake images: Detecting ai-generated videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4397–4408, 2024

    2024

  141. [149]

    Dvmark: a deep multiscale framework for video watermarking

    Xiyang Luo, Yinxiao Li, Huiwen Chang, Ce Liu, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. Dvmark: a deep multiscale framework for video watermarking. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 2023

    2023

  142. [150]

    A novel deep video watermarking framework with enhanced robustness to h

    Yulin Zhang, Jiangqun Ni, Wenkang Su, and Xin Liao. A novel deep video watermarking framework with enhanced robustness to h. 264/avc compression. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 8095–8104, 2023

    2023

  143. [151]

    Listening between the lines: Synthetic speech detection disregarding verbal content

    Davide Salvi, Temesgen Semu Balcha, Paolo Bestagini, and Stefano Tubaro. Listening between the lines: Synthetic speech detection disregarding verbal content. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05567 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  144. [152]

    Dear: A deep-learning-based audio re-recording resilient watermarking

    Chang Liu, Jie Zhang, Han Fang, Zehua Ma, Weiming Zhang, and Nenghai Yu. Dear: A deep-learning-based audio re-recording resilient watermarking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37–11, pages 13201–13209, 2023

    2023

  145. [153]

    Proactive detection of voice cloning with localized watermarking

    Robin San Roman, Pierre Fernandez, Alexandre D ´efossez, Teddy Furon, Tuan Tran, and Hady Elsahar. Proactive detection of voice cloning with localized watermarking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17264 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  146. [154]

    Adversarial audio watermarking: Embedding watermark into deep feature

    Shiqiang Wu, Jie Liu, Ying Huang, Hu Guan, and Shuwu Zhang. Adversarial audio watermarking: Embedding watermark into deep feature. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pages 61–66. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  147. [155]

    Slim: Style- linguistics mismatch model for generalized audio deepfake detection

    Yi Zhu, Surya Koppisetti, Trang Tran, and Gaurav Bharaj. Slim: Style- linguistics mismatch model for generalized audio deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18517 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  148. [156]

    Audio transformer for synthetic speech detection via multi-formant analysis

    Luca Cuccovillo, Milica Gerhardt, and Patrick Aichroth. Audio transformer for synthetic speech detection via multi-formant analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4409–4417, 2024

    2024

  149. [157]

    Easy, interpretable, effective: opensmile for voice deepfake detection

    Octavian Pascu, Dan Oneata, Horia Cucu, and Nicolas M M ¨uller. Easy, interpretable, effective: opensmile for voice deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15775, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  150. [158]

    Harmonet: Partial deepfake detection network based on multi-scale harmof0 feature fusion

    Liwei Liu, Huihui Wei, Dongya Liu, and Zhonghua Fu. Harmonet: Partial deepfake detection network based on multi-scale harmof0 feature fusion. In Proc. Interspeech 2024 , pages 2255–2259, 2024

    2024

  151. [159]

    Coarse-to-fine proposal refinement framework for audio temporal forgery detection and localization

    Junyan Wu, Wei Lu, Xiangyang Luo, Rui Yang, Qian Wang, and Xiaochun Cao. Coarse-to-fine proposal refinement framework for audio temporal forgery detection and localization. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 7395–7403, 2024

    2024

  152. [160]

    Detecting and grounding multi-modal media manipulation

    Rui Shao, Tianxing Wu, and Ziwei Liu. Detecting and grounding multi-modal media manipulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 6904–6913, June 2023

    2023

  153. [161]

    Zero-shot fake video detection by audio-visual consistency

    Xiaolou Li, Zehua Liu, Chen Chen, Lantian Li, Li Guo, and Dong Wang. Zero-shot fake video detection by audio-visual consistency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07854, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  154. [162]

    Triple-modality interaction for deepfake detection on zero-shot identity

    JunHo Yoon, Angel Panizo-LLedot, David Camacho, and Chang Choi. Triple-modality interaction for deepfake detection on zero-shot identity. Information Fusion, 109:102424, 2024

    2024

  155. [163]

    Dimodif: Discourse modality-information differentiation for audio-visual deepfake detection and localization

    Christos Koutlis and Symeon Papadopoulos. Dimodif: Discourse modality-information differentiation for audio-visual deepfake detection and localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10193 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  156. [164]

    Contextual cross-modal attention for audio-visual deepfake detection and localization

    Vinaya Sree Katamneni and Ajita Rattani. Contextual cross-modal attention for audio-visual deepfake detection and localization. In 2024 IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB) , pages 1–11. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  157. [165]

    Gptzero: Human or ai? https://gptzero.me/, 2023

    GPTZero. Gptzero: Human or ai? https://gptzero.me/, 2023

    2023

  158. [166]

    Digital watermarking technology for ai-generated images: A survey

    Huixin Luo, Li Li, and Juncheng Li. Digital watermarking technology for ai-generated images: A survey. Preprints, 2025

    2025

  159. [167]

    Mtd-net: Learning to detect deepfakes images by multi-scale texture difference

    Jiachen Yang, Aiyun Li, Shuai Xiao, Wen Lu, and Xinbo Gao. Mtd-net: Learning to detect deepfakes images by multi-scale texture difference. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , 16:4234– 4245, 2021

    2021

  160. [168]

    Perspective (in) consistency of paint by text

    Hany Farid. Perspective (in) consistency of paint by text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14617, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  161. [169]

    Patchcraft: Exploring texture patch for efficient ai-generated image detection

    Nan Zhong, Yiran Xu, Sheng Li, Zhenxing Qian, and Xinpeng Zhang. Patchcraft: Exploring texture patch for efficient ai-generated image detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12397 , pages 1–18, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  162. [170]

    C2p-clip: Injecting category common prompt in clip to enhance generalization in deepfake detection

    Chuangchuang Tan, Renshuai Tao, Huan Liu, Guanghua Gu, Baoyuan Wu, Yao Zhao, and Yunchao Wei. C2p-clip: Injecting category common prompt in clip to enhance generalization in deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09647, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  163. [171]

    On the correlation between deepfake detection performance and image quality metrics

    Hyunjoon Kim, Jaehee Lee, Leo Hyun Park, and Taekyoung Kwon. On the correlation between deepfake detection performance and image quality metrics. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on the Security Implications of Deepfakes and Cheapfakes , pages 14–19, 2024

    2024

  164. [172]

    A quality-centric framework for generic deepfake detection

    Wentang Song, Zhiyuan Yan, Yuzhen Lin, Taiping Yao, Changsheng Chen, Shen Chen, Yandan Zhao, Shouhong Ding, and Bin Li. A quality-centric framework for generic deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05335, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  165. [173]

    Safeear: Content privacy-preserving audio deepfake detection

    Xinfeng Li, Kai Li, Yifan Zheng, Chen Yan, Xiaoyu Ji, and Wenyuan Xu. Safeear: Content privacy-preserving audio deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pages 3585–3599, 2024

    2024

  166. [174]

    Fine-grained multimodal deepfake classification via heterogeneous graphs

    Qilin Yin, Wei Lu, Xiaochun Cao, Xiangyang Luo, Yicong Zhou, and Jiwu Huang. Fine-grained multimodal deepfake classification via heterogeneous graphs. International Journal of Computer Vision , pages 1–15, 2024

    2024

  167. [175]

    How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection

    Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07597, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  168. [176]

    Mage: Machine-generated text detection in the wild

    Yafu Li, Qintong Li, Leyang Cui, Wei Bi, Zhilin Wang, Longyue Wang, Linyi Yang, Shuming Shi, and Yue Zhang. Mage: Machine-generated text detection in the wild. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , ...

    2024

  169. [177]

    Genimage: A million-scale benchmark for detecting ai-generated image

    Mingjian Zhu, Hanting Chen, Qiangyu Yan, Xudong Huang, Guanyu Lin, Wei Li, Zhijun Tu, Hailin Hu, Jie Hu, and Yunhe Wang. Genimage: A million-scale benchmark for detecting ai-generated image. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024

    2024

  170. [178]

    Fakebench: Uncover the achilles’ heels of fake images with large multimodal models

    Yixuan Li, Xuelin Liu, Xiaoyang Wang, Shiqi Wang, and Weisi Lin. Fakebench: Uncover the achilles’ heels of fake images with large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13306 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  171. [179]

    Seeing is not always believing: benchmarking human and model perception of ai-generated images

    Zeyu Lu, Di Huang, Lei Bai, Jingjing Qu, Chengyue Wu, Xihui Liu, and Wanli Ouyang. Seeing is not always believing: benchmarking human and model perception of ai-generated images. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024

    2024

  172. [180]

    Sonar: A synthetic ai-audio detection framework and benchmark

    Xiang Li, Pin-Yu Chen, and Wenqi Wei. Sonar: A synthetic ai-audio detection framework and benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04324 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  173. [181]

    V oicewukong: Benchmarking deepfake voice detection

    Ziwei Yan, Yanjie Zhao, and Haoyu Wang. V oicewukong: Benchmarking deepfake voice detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06348 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  174. [182]

    Fakemusiccaps: a dataset for detection and attribution of synthetic music generated via text-to-music models

    Luca Comanducci, Paolo Bestagini, and Stefano Tubaro. Fakemusiccaps: a dataset for detection and attribution of synthetic music generated via text-to-music models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10684 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  175. [183]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04948 , 2019

    2019 arXiv

  176. [184]

    Sepmark: Deep separable watermarking for unified source tracing and deepfake detection

    Xiaoshuai Wu, Xin Liao, and Bo Ou. Sepmark: Deep separable watermarking for unified source tracing and deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 1190–1201, 2023

    2023

  177. [185]

    Video diffusion models

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Moham- mad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Video diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:8633–8646, 2022

    2022

  178. [186]

    Pika labs. Pika. https://pika.art/, 2024

    2024

  179. [187]

    runway. Gen-2. https://runwayml.com/research/gen-2, 2024

    2024

  180. [188]

    Youku-mplug: A 10 million large-scale chinese video-language dataset for pre-training and benchmarks

    Haiyang Xu, Qinghao Ye, Xuan Wu, Ming Yan, Yuan Miao, Jiabo Ye, Guohai Xu, Anwen Hu, Yaya Shi, Guangwei Xu, et al. Youku-mplug: A 10 million large-scale chinese video-language dataset for pre-training and benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04362 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  181. [189]

    The kinetics human action video dataset

    Will Kay, Joao Carreira, Karen Simonyan, Brian Zhang, Chloe Hillier, Sudheendra Vijayanarasimhan, Fabio Viola, Tim Green, Trevor Back, Paul Natsev, et al. The kinetics human action video dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.06950, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  182. [190]

    Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language

    Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 5288–5296, 2016

    2016

  183. [191]

    Musiclm: Generating music from text

    Andrea Agostinelli, Timo I Denk, Zal ´an Borsos, Jesse Engel, Mauro Verzetti, Antoine Caillon, Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Adam Roberts, Marco Tagliasacchi, et al. Musiclm: Generating music from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  184. [192]

    Av-deepfake1m: JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL

    Zhixi Cai, Shreya Ghosh, Aman Pankaj Adatia, Munawar Hayat, Abhinav Dhall, Tom Gedeon, and Kalin Stefanov. Av-deepfake1m: JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 24 A large-scale llm-driven audio-visual deepfake dataset. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Interna...

    2021

  185. [193]

    Salad-bench: A hierarchical and comprehensive safety benchmark for large language models

    Lijun Li, Bowen Dong, Ruohui Wang, Xuhao Hu, Wangmeng Zuo, Dahua Lin, Yu Qiao, and Jing Shao. Salad-bench: A hierarchical and comprehensive safety benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05044, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  186. [194]

    Tweepfake: About detecting deepfake tweets

    Tiziano Fagni, Fabrizio Falchi, Margherita Gambini, Antonio Martella, and Maurizio Tesconi. Tweepfake: About detecting deepfake tweets. Plos one, 16(5):e0251415, 2021

    2021

  187. [195]

    Dreambench++: A human-aligned benchmark for personalized image generation

    Yuang Peng, Yuxin Cui, Haomiao Tang, Zekun Qi, Runpei Dong, Jing Bai, Chunrui Han, Zheng Ge, Xiangyu Zhang, and Shu-Tao Xia. Dreambench++: A human-aligned benchmark for personalized image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16855 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  188. [196]

    Mllm- as-a-judge: Assessing multimodal llm-as-a-judge with vision-language benchmark

    Dongping Chen, Ruoxi Chen, Shilin Zhang, Yinuo Liu, Yaochen Wang, Huichi Zhou, Qihui Zhang, Yao Wan, Pan Zhou, and Lichao Sun. Mllm- as-a-judge: Assessing multimodal llm-as-a-judge with vision-language benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04788 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  189. [197]

    Large language model safety: A holistic survey

    Dan Shi, Tianhao Shen, Yufei Huang, Zhigen Li, Yongqi Leng, Renren Jin, Chuang Liu, Xinwei Wu, Zishan Guo, Linhao Yu, et al. Large language model safety: A holistic survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17686, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  190. [198]

    Taking ai risks seriously: a new assessment model for the ai act

    Claudio Novelli, Federico Casolari, Antonino Rotolo, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. Taking ai risks seriously: a new assessment model for the ai act. AI & SOCIETY , 39(5):2493–2497, 2024

    2024

  191. [199]

    Ai risk categorization decoded (air 2024): From government regulations to corporate policies

    Yi Zeng, Kevin Klyman, Andy Zhou, Yu Yang, Minzhou Pan, Ruoxi Jia, Dawn Song, Percy Liang, and Bo Li. Ai risk categorization decoded (air 2024): From government regulations to corporate policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17864, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  192. [200]

    Artificial intelligence act

    European Commission. Artificial intelligence act. https:// artificialintelligenceact.eu/, 2024

    2024

  193. [201]

    Cyberspace administration of china

    European Commission. Cyberspace administration of china. https: //www.cac.gov.cn/2023-07/13/c 1690898327029107.htm, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.