Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

ForenX: Towards Explainable AI-Generated Image Detection with Multimodal Large Language Models

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ForenX uses a forensic prompt to make multimodal language models detect AI-generated images and explain why they are fake.

desk verdict A plausible explainable-detection package, but the abstract alone can't support the soundness claims; the circularity worry about ForgReason deserves scrutiny in the full paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01402 v1 pith:42CEVOWN submitted 2025-08-02 cs.CV

Chuangchuang Tan , Jinglu Wang , Xiang Ming , Renshuai Tao , Yunchao Wei , Yao Zhao , Yan Lu This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords AI-generatedimagedetectionmultimodallargelanguagemodelsexplainableforensicsforensicpromptForgReasondatasetforgerygeneralization
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

The paper argues that AI-generated image detection should not stop at a binary verdict; it should also produce explanations a human examiner can follow. To that end, it proposes ForenX, a method that uses multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to analyze an image and generate a justified authenticity judgment. The key additions are a specialized forensic prompt that directs the model to forgery-indicative attributes, and ForgReason, a dataset of forgery-evidence descriptions built by an LLM-based agent and refined by human annotators. The paper claims that this combined approach improves generalization on two major benchmarks and that even a modest amount of human-annotated data substantially boosts explanation quality.

What carries the argument

Two coupled components carry the argument. The first is a specialized forensic prompt, a fixed instruction that steers the MLLM's attention toward forgery-indicative attributes, counteracting the model's default tendency to overlook subtle artifacts. The second is ForgReason, a dataset of image-forgery evidence descriptions produced by an LLM-based agent and then refined by human annotators; fine-tuning on this data gives the model a vocabulary and reasoning pattern for generating explanations that are accurate, relevant, and comprehensive. Together they transform a general-purpose vision-language model into a forensically aware detector with an explanatory output.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to hold out an entire family of generative models not represented in the training data, run ForenX on those images, and have independent forensic examiners judge whether the model's explanations point to the true generative artifacts (for example, the specific texture or noise patterns of that generator). If explanation accuracy collapses on such out-of-distribution images while detection accuracy stays high, the explanations are not tracking independent forensic evidence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a multimodal large language model, guided by a forensic prompt and fine-tuned on the ForgReason dataset, can both detect AI-generated images with better generalization than standard classifiers and explain its decisions in terms that resonate with human forensic reasoning. The paper reports that this method outperforms classifier baselines on two major benchmarks, and that the explanations it produces are accurate, relevant, and comprehensive according to subjective evaluation. The authors see this as closing a gap between automated detection and the kind of interpretive analysis a human forensic examiner would perform.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the forensic prompt and the ForgReason annotations direct the model to visual evidence that genuinely indicates forgery, rather than to artifacts that merely correlate with the two benchmarks used for evaluation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single model can output both a verdict and a human-readable explanation, so forensic analysts can inspect the reasoning behind each decision instead of trusting an opaque score.
  • Because the method builds on MLLMs, it inherits broad visual knowledge from pretrained models, potentially transferring to unseen forgery types without retraining the entire vision backbone.
  • The ForgReason dataset, built cheaply with an LLM agent and refined by limited human annotations, could lower the cost of producing explainable detectors for other forensic tasks.
  • If the reported generalization holds, explanation-guided training acts as a regularizer that improves detection beyond what a standard classifier would achieve on the same benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test would be to apply ForenX to images from generators entirely absent from the training benchmarks; the paper's explanation quality claim could break down if the model has only learned benchmark-specific artifacts.
  • The same forensic-prompt-plus-dataset recipe might transfer to other evidence-oriented tasks, such as deepfake video attribution or splice localization, where MLLMs currently lack a vocabulary for describing artifacts.
  • The subjective evaluation of explanations leaves open whether the explanations are causally tied to the detection decision or are plausible post-hoc narratives; a controlled comparison against a classifier trained without the explanation loss would separate the two.
  • If explanation quality degrades under adversarial perturbations that preserve the image content, that would suggest the explanations reflect surface statistics rather than genuine forensic evidence.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents ForenX, a method that uses multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for AI-generated image detection, augmented by a specialized forensic prompt and a new dataset called ForgReason. The dataset is curated through collaboration between an LLM-based agent and human annotators. The authors claim that ForenX improves generalization over standard MLLMs for forgery detection and provides explanations that are accurate, relevant, and comprehensive, as verified by subjective evaluations on two major benchmarks.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, ForenX would represent a meaningful step toward explainable AI-generated image detection, addressing a recognized limitation of black-box classifiers. The introduction of the ForgReason dataset with human-in-the-loop curation is a potentially useful resource for the community. However, the significance is entirely conditional at this stage: the abstract reports no quantitative results, no error bars, and no details of the evaluation protocol, so the reader cannot assess whether the claimed improvements are real or an artifact of benchmark-specific correlations or self-consistent evaluation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, first paragraph] The central claim that ForenX 'improves the generalization of forgery detection' is not supported by any quantitative result in the abstract. No detection accuracy, AUC, F1, or comparison against existing methods is reported, nor are error bars or significance tests mentioned. Without such evidence, the claim is unverified and cannot be evaluated by the reader.
  2. [Abstract, third paragraph] The statement that 'explainability is verified by comprehensive subjective evaluations' is too vague to be assessed. The abstract does not describe the number of participants, the rating scale, inter-annotator agreement, the comparison baselines, or the exact criteria for 'accurate, relevant, and comprehensive.' Without this information, the reader cannot judge whether the claimed explanation quality is meaningful or whether the evaluation was biased by the evaluators' familiarity with the method.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, first paragraph] The sentence 'This approach not only enhance the generalization...' contains a subject-verb agreement error; it should read 'not only enhances.'
  2. [Abstract, second paragraph] The phrase 'this process provides refined data that further enhances our model's performance' is unclear about what 'refined' means operationally; specifying the curation pipeline or giving an example would improve clarity.
  3. [Abstract, third paragraph] The term 'two major benchmarks' is underspecified; naming the benchmarks would allow the reader to judge the generality of the evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity can be established from the available abstract; the derivation chain is not specified and the human-annotation component breaks any claimed self-consistency loop.

full rationale

The manuscript provides only an abstract, with no equations, derivations, or explicit reduction of a prediction to an input. The central method combines a specialized forensic prompt with an MLLM and a dataset, ForgReason, curated through collaboration between an LLM-based agent and human annotators. A circularity finding requires exhibiting a specific step where an output is equivalent to an input by construction, such as fitting a parameter to a target quantity and then renaming the fit as a prediction. No such step can be identified from the text. The concern that an LLM-curated dataset may reinforce an MLLM's existing biases is a plausible validity risk, but it is not established circularity: the presence of human annotators provides independent grounding, and subjective evaluation measures perceived explanation quality rather than encoding the model's own outputs as ground truth. The generalization claims are empirically evaluated on two benchmarks, which are external to the model's training labels. Without access to the full method and dataset construction details, no specific circular reduction can be quoted. Therefore, consistent with the requirement not to manufacture circularity, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric free parameters are visible from the abstract; learned model weights are standard for the method. The key assumptions are that MLLM explanations are meaningful and that the LLM-curated dataset provides independent forensic ground truth.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Multimodal large language models can extract meaningful forensic cues from images and express them in natural language.
    The whole method depends on MLLM visual-textual reasoning being sufficient for forensic analysis; no proof is offered in the abstract.
  • ad hoc to paper The ForgReason annotations, produced by an LLM agent and human annotators, reflect true forgery evidence rather than dataset-specific correlations.
    The dataset is introduced specifically for this method; its ground truth is internally defined and not independently validated in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ForenX: Towards Explainable AI-Generated Image Detection with Multimodal Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42CEVOWN

@misc{pith2026250801402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ForenX: Towards Explainable AI-Generated Image Detection with Multimodal Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42CEVOWN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01402}
}
read the original abstract

Advances in generative models have led to AI-generated images visually indistinguishable from authentic ones. Despite numerous studies on detecting AI-generated images with classifiers, a gap persists between such methods and human cognitive forensic analysis. We present ForenX, a novel method that not only identifies the authenticity of images but also provides explanations that resonate with human thoughts. ForenX employs the powerful multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to analyze and interpret forensic cues. Furthermore, we overcome the limitations of standard MLLMs in detecting forgeries by incorporating a specialized forensic prompt that directs the MLLMs attention to forgery-indicative attributes. This approach not only enhance the generalization of forgery detection but also empowers the MLLMs to provide explanations that are accurate, relevant, and comprehensive. Additionally, we introduce ForgReason, a dataset dedicated to descriptions of forgery evidences in AI-generated images. Curated through collaboration between an LLM-based agent and a team of human annotators, this process provides refined data that further enhances our model's performance. We demonstrate that even limited manual annotations significantly improve explanation quality. We evaluate the effectiveness of ForenX on two major benchmarks. The model's explainability is verified by comprehensive subjective evaluations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Trustworthy Image Authentication using Forensic Knowledge Graphs

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Forensic Knowledge Graphs integrate forensic traces, causal dependencies, and scene links via a new authentication network and Iterative Context Refinement to outperform standard detectors and VLMs on detection, local...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    In https://www.midjourney.com/home/, 2022

    Midjourney. In https://www.midjourney.com/home/, 2022. Accessed: 2024-11-09

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Wukong, 2022. 5. In https://xihe.mindspore.cn/modelzoo/wukong, 2022. Accessed: 2024-11-09

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    In https://fluxaiimagegenerator.com/, 2024

    Flux. In https://fluxaiimagegenerator.com/, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis

    Andrew Brock et al. Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    What makes fake images detectable? understanding properties that generalize

    Lucy Chai et al. What makes fake images detectable? understanding properties that generalize. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 103--120. Springer, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    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

    work page 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Stargan: Unified generative adversarial networks for multi-domain image-to-image translation

    Yunjey Choi et al. Stargan: Unified generative adversarial networks for multi-domain image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8789--8797, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning, 2023

    Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven Hoi. Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal et al. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 8780--8794, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2020

    Alexey Dosovitskiy et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Watch your up-convolution: Cnn based generative deep neural networks are failing to reproduce spectral distributions

    Ricard Durall et al. Watch your up-convolution: Cnn based generative deep neural networks are failing to reproduce spectral distributions. In CVPR, pages 7890--7899, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Leveraging frequency analysis for deep fake image recognition

    Joel Frank et al. Leveraging frequency analysis for deep fake image recognition. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3247--3258. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian J Goodfellow et al. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Vector quantized diffusion model for text-to-image synthesis

    Shuyang Gu, Dong Chen, Jianmin Bao, Fang Wen, Bo Zhang, Dongdong Chen, Lu Yuan, and Baining Guo. Vector quantized diffusion model for text-to-image synthesis. In CVPR, pages 10696--10706, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He et al. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770--778, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho et al. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 6840--6851, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Bihpf: Bilateral high-pass filters for robust deepfake detection

    Yonghyun Jeong et al. Bihpf: Bilateral high-pass filters for robust deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 48--57, 2022 a

    2022

  14. [22]

    Frepgan: robust deepfake detection using frequency-level perturbations

    Yonghyun Jeong et al. Frepgan: robust deepfake detection using frequency-level perturbations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1060--1068, 2022 b

    2022

  15. [23]

    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 CVPR, pages 4324--4333, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation

    Tero Karras et al. Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras et al. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In CVPR, pages 4401--4410, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Mimic-it: Multi-modal in-context instruction tuning

    Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Liangyu Chen, Jinghao Wang, Fanyi Pu, Jingkang Yang, Chunyuan Li, and Ziwei Liu. Mimic-it: Multi-modal in-context instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05425, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day

    Chunyuan Li, Cliff Wong, Sheng Zhang, Naoto Usuyama, Haotian Liu, Jianwei Yang, Tristan Naumann, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024 a

    2024

  20. [28]

    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 b

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Visual instruction tuning

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

    2024

  22. [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 b

    2024

  23. [31]

    Forgery-aware adaptive transformer for generalizable synthetic image detection

    Huan Liu, Zichang Tan, Chuangchuang Tan, Yunchao Wei, Jingdong Wang, and Yao Zhao. Forgery-aware adaptive transformer for generalizable synthetic image detection. In CVPR, pages 10770--10780, 2024 c

    2024

  24. [32]

    Evolving from single-modal to multi-modal facial deepfake detection: Progress and challenges

    Ping Liu, Qiqi Tao, and Joey Tianyi Zhou. Evolving from single-modal to multi-modal facial deepfake detection: Progress and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06965, 2024 d

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 10012--10022, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Global texture enhancement for fake face detection in the wild

    Zhengzhe Liu et al. Global texture enhancement for fake face detection in the wild. In CVPR, pages 8060--8069, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Detecting gan-generated images by orthogonal training of multiple cnns

    Sara Mandelli, Nicol \`o Bonettini, Paolo Bestagini, and Stefano Tubaro. Detecting gan-generated images by orthogonal training of multiple cnns. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 3091--3095. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Peft: State-of-the-art parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods

    Sourab Mangrulkar, Sylvain Gugger, Lysandre Debut, Younes Belkada, Sayak Paul, and Benjamin Bossan. Peft: State-of-the-art parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods. https://github.com/huggingface/peft, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob Mcgrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pag...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Towards universal fake image detectors that generalize across generative models

    Utkarsh Ojha et al. Towards universal fake image detectors that generalize across generative models. In CVPR, pages 24480--24489, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Semantic image synthesis with spatially-adaptive normalization

    Taesung Park et al. Semantic image synthesis with spatially-adaptive normalization. In CVPR, pages 2337--2346, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

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

    Peng Qi, Zehong Yan, Wynne Hsu, and Mong Li Lee. Sniffer: Multimodal large language model for explainable out-of-context misinformation detection. In CVPR, pages 13052--13062, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Thinking in frequency: Face forgery detection by mining frequency-aware clues

    Yuyang Qian et al. Thinking in frequency: Face forgery detection by mining frequency-aware clues. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 86--103. Springer, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pa...

    2021

  36. [44]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach et al. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 10684--10695, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    Detecting deepfakes with self-blended images

    Kaede Shiohara et al. Detecting deepfakes with self-blended images. In CVPR, pages 18720--18729, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    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 CVPR (CVPR), pages 12105--12114, 2023 a

    2023

  40. [48]

    Data-independent operator: A training-free artifact representation extractor for generalizable deepfake detection

    Chuangchuang Tan, Ping Liu, RenShuai Tao, Huan Liu, Yao Zhao, Baoyuan Wu, and Yunchao Wei. Data-independent operator: A training-free artifact representation extractor for generalizable deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06803, 2024 a

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    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 b

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Frequency-aware deepfake detection: Improving generalizability through frequency space domain learning

    Chuangchuang Tan, Yao Zhao, Shikui Wei, Guanghua Gu, Ping Liu, and Yunchao Wei. Frequency-aware deepfake detection: Improving generalizability through frequency space domain learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5052--5060, 2024 c

    2024

  43. [51]

    Rethinking the up-sampling operations in cnn-based generative network for generalizable deepfake detection

    Chuangchuang Tan, Yao Zhao, Shikui Wei, Guanghua Gu, Ping Liu, and Yunchao Wei. Rethinking the up-sampling operations in cnn-based generative network for generalizable deepfake detection. In CVPR, pages 28130--28139, 2024 d

    2024

  44. [52]

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

    Chuangchuang Tan et al. Learning on gradients: Generalized artifacts representation for gan-generated images detection. In CVPR (CVPR), pages 12105--12114, 2023 b

    2023

  45. [53]

    Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention

    Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Herv \'e J \'e gou. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10347--10357. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    Cnn-generated images are surprisingly easy to spot

    Sheng-Yu Wang et al. Cnn-generated images are surprisingly easy to spot... for now. In CVPR, pages 8695--8704, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 24824--24837. Curran Associates,...

    2022

  48. [56]

    Detecting and simulating artifacts in gan fake images

    Xu Zhang et al. Detecting and simulating artifacts in gan fake images. In 2019 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), pages 1--6. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks

    Jun-Yan Zhu et al. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2223--2232, 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.