Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 30 references

LDR-Net: A Novel Framework for AI-generated Image Detection via Localized Discrepancy Representation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One detector can catch GAN and diffusion images from their localized smoothing and pattern-uniformity artifacts.

desk verdict A simple, cheap local-feature detector with broad benchmarks but a domain confound that needs a control before the cross-generator claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13475 v1 pith:LZXHFDFP submitted 2025-01-23 cs.CV

JiaXin Chen , Miao Hu , DengYong Zhang , Yun Song , Xin Liao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords AI-generatedimagedetectionlocalgradientautocorrelationvariationpatterncross-generatorgeneralizationGAN-generateddiffusionmodelforensicslocalizeddiscrepancyrepresentation
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 tries to show that AI-generated images share a detectable local defect: generative models over-smooth small regions and produce unnaturally regular pixel patterns, whereas real images keep complex, random local texture. On that basis it proposes LDR-Net, a detector built from two complementary feature extractors — local gradient autocorrelation (LGA) for smoothing anomalies and local variation pattern (LVP) for pattern uniformity — whose outputs are concatenated and classified by a pruned residual network. Trained only on ProGAN images from four LSUN categories, the network reports average accuracies of 90.8% on ForenSynths, 96.0% on DiffusionForensics, 93.1% on Ojha, and 86.2% on Self-Synthesis, matching or exceeding published baselines on images from unseen GANs and diffusion models. If the claim holds, one compact detector trained once on a single generator family could serve as a practical first-line filter for synthetic images across evolving generative architectures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the paired representation of localized discrepancy. LGA builds a residual between the Sobel gradient magnitude and its Gaussian-smoothed version, isolating the high-frequency smoothing anomalies that generated images tend to erase. LVP turns each 3×3 neighborhood into eight binary direction codes, one per neighbor indicating whether the center pixel is brighter, weights each direction with a distinct real number, and sums them into a single value whose distribution reflects local pattern complexity; generated images produce narrower, more uniform distributions. The two feature maps are concatenated and fed to a pruned residual classifier, so the detector sees edge-texture anomalies and pixel-distribution regularity at the same time.

What would settle it

Find a generator whose images have natural-looking local gradients and high directional-code entropy — for example, a diffusion model trained with an explicit texture-preserving loss — and test LDR-Net on it after training only on ProGAN images; if accuracy drops to chance while human observers still judge the images synthetic by other means, the local-discrepancy premise is falsified. A cheaper check is to compare LGA and LVP feature distributions on real versus generated images across many generator families and look for an unseen family whose feature distributions overlap real images.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that local discrepancy, not global statistics, separates generated from real images. Generated images carry excessive smoothness, blurred textures, and overly uniform small-scale pixel variation because generators apply smoothing to force visual coherence, while real images retain complex, diverse local patterns and natural randomness. LDR-Net makes this measurable in two ways: it computes the Sobel gradient magnitude, smooths it with a Gaussian kernel, and subtracts the smoothed version to leave high-frequency anomalies (LGA); and it encodes each pixel's intensity relation to its eight neighbors as a weighted directional code whose value distribution is narrower and simpler for generated images (LVP). Concatenating LGA and LVP features and training a pruned residual classifier on ProGAN images yields, the paper reports, a detector that outperforms or matches prior methods on unseen GANs and diffusion models and keeps high accuracy under Gaussian blur and resizing.

Load-bearing premise

The entire cross-generator claim rests on the assumption that local over-smoothing and pattern uniformity are universal footprints of generative models, so that a classifier trained only on ProGAN images from four LSUN categories transfers to unseen GANs and diffusion models; the paper provides no control experiment that separates artifact universality from dataset statistics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector trained once on ProGAN images from four LSUN categories can transfer to GAN families such as StyleGAN, BigGAN, CycleGAN, StarGAN, GauGAN, and DeepFake without retraining, at the reported accuracy.
  • The same training transfers to diffusion families such as ADM, DDPM, IDDPM, LDM, PNDM, VQ-Diffusion, and Stable Diffusion, with average accuracy around 96% on the DiffusionForensics set.
  • Because the features are local and relational rather than absolute pixel values, the method survives Gaussian blur and resizing better than the compared baselines, keeping average accuracy near 92% and 95% respectively on DiffusionForensics.
  • Longer diffusion sampling and text-to-image generators do not erase the artifacts: on the Self-Synthesis set, LDR-Net stays above 86% average accuracy against diffusion models and Midjourney/DALL-E content.
  • The two modules are complementary: each alone reaches about 85–86% average accuracy on ForenSynths, while the combined network reaches 90.8%, indicating they catch distinct artifact dimensions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that LGA and LVP are simple convolutional operations that could run before or beside a deep classifier, making a lightweight screening tool feasible on devices with limited compute.
  • The paper's logic predicts that a generator trained with an explicit penalty on local over-smoothing and pattern uniformity — for example, a loss that pushes gradient autocorrelation and directional-code entropy toward real-image values — should defeat this detector faster than a generator that only matches global statistics.
  • A boundary of the reported generalization is that training uses only four LSUN object categories; if local artifact statistics differ by content domain, a detector trained on objects may not transfer to faces or medical imagery, a split the paper does not test.
  • The robustness results suggest a testable extension: measuring how accuracy decays under JPEG compression, which the paper says is reported in supplementary material, would show whether the local features survive the most common real-world re-encoding.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LDR-Net, a detection framework for AI-generated images that combines two handcrafted local features: LGA, a high-frequency residual obtained by subtracting a Gaussian-smoothed gradient magnitude map from the original gradient magnitude map, and LVP, a scalar encoding of thresholded local intensity differences with randomly chosen fixed weights. These feature maps are concatenated and fed into a pruned ResNet classifier. The model is trained on ProGAN-generated images and LSUN real images from four categories (cars, cats, chairs, horses) and evaluated on four benchmarks: ForenSynths, DiffusionForensics, Ojha, and Self-Synthesis. The paper reports average ACC/AP values that match or exceed recent baselines such as NPR and MI Net, together with ablations, a sensitivity study of the Gaussian smoothing parameter sigma, robustness to Gaussian blur and resizing, and CAM visualizations.

Significance. If the reported cross-generator accuracy holds, the paper would demonstrate that simple local discrepancy features—gradient residual statistics and local binary pattern complexity—can generalize across unseen GANs and diffusion models at a level competitive with recent learned methods. The empirical scope is substantial: four benchmarks, eight GAN sources, eight diffusion sources, and self-synthesized images, with comparisons to a current set of baselines. The training protocol follows the now-standard ProGAN/LSUN setup, which makes the results directly comparable to prior work. The main weakness is that the universal-footprint interpretation is not yet isolated from real-domain shift: because the real test images come from different datasets than the training real images, the reported ACC/AP could partly reflect domain separation rather than artifact detection. The paper therefore needs a real-only control before the central generalization claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1, Tables 2–5] The cross-generator generalization claim is not supported by a real-only control. The classifier is trained on real LSUN images from four categories and ProGAN fakes, while the test sets pair fake images with real images drawn from other LSUN splits, ImageNet, LAION, and social-platform data. If the model is separating the real training domain from the test real domains rather than real from generated, the pooled ACC/AP in Tables 2–5 could remain high even if true-negative accuracy on ImageNet/LAION real images is near zero. Because only per-source ACC/AP is reported and no per-source true-negative rates or confusion matrices are given, the reader cannot distinguish the artifact-universality hypothesis from a dataset-statistics confound. Please report per-source real-class accuracy and include a control in which the real test images are drawn from the same LSUN distribution as the training set; this is a necessary condition for the claimed universal footprint.
  2. [§4.5, Table 6] The Gaussian smoothing parameter sigma is selected by evaluating on the ForenSynths dataset, which is also one of the test sets used for the headline cross-GAN results in Table 2. This makes the reported ForenSynths numbers optimistically biased and complicates comparison with baselines whose hyperparameters were not tuned on the same test set. Please move sigma selection to a validation split, or report validation-based selection, and state explicitly whether the same sigma is used for all other test sets without any test-set feedback.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §4.3] The unqualified claim of state-of-the-art performance is overstated: in Table 2 LDR-Net ties with NPR on mean ACC (90.8%) and is below Ojha on mean AP (95.3% vs. 98.3%). Please qualify the claim as matching or surpassing on ACC while being second-best on AP.
  2. [Eq. (9)] Equation (9) uses N both as the upper summation limit and inside 'N = 7', which is confusing; define the eight weights W_0,...,W_7 explicitly. Also, the random selection of these weights is not specified with a distribution or seed, which hurts reproducibility.
  3. [§4.4] The text says the method is tested on 'DIRE [Wang et al., 2023] and Ojha [Wang et al., 2023]', but Table 3 is headed 'DiffusionForensics' and the Ojha dataset reference should be [Ojha et al., 2023]. Please align the dataset names and references.
  4. [Table 3] In the F3Net row, the AP value '99,5' uses a comma as the decimal separator; please use '99.5' for consistency.
  5. [§1 and §3.2] The contribution text describes LVP as capturing 'low-frequency inconsistencies', but LVP is computed from per-pixel intensity differences and is not a low-frequency feature. Rephrase to avoid this inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LDR-Net is an empirical feature-architecture evaluation against external benchmarks, with no load-bearing step that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are empirical: that combining LGA and LVP features yields high accuracy and generalization across unseen generative models. The LGA feature is defined by a fixed pipeline (Sobel gradient, Gaussian smoothing, residual subtraction; Eqs. 1-6) and the LVP feature is defined by a fixed binary directional code with randomly selected, pre-fixed weights (Eqs. 7-9); neither feature is fitted to the detection labels. The only trained component is a standard pruned ResNet classifier trained end-to-end with binary cross-entropy, and the reported numbers are measured on held-out external test sets (ForenSynths, DiffusionForensics, Ojha, Self-Synthesis) against external baselines. The Gaussian smoothing parameter sigma is selected by a hyperparameter study on the ForenSynths dataset (Table 6); this is ordinary tuning of a handcrafted feature, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the central generalization results are evaluated on datasets not used for this selection. No theoretical derivation is claimed, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the argument: the cited prior work provides datasets and baselines, not the paper's own feature definitions. The skeptical concern that pooled accuracy could partly reflect real-domain separation rather than generator artifacts is a legitimate external-validity or soundness question, but it is not a circularity: the paper does not define 'generated' in terms of its features, and the reported experiments are externally falsifiable. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar of quoting a specific reduction of a prediction to its inputs, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; LGA and LVP are feature maps, not entities. The free parameters and domain assumptions listed are the main unverified inputs the central claim depends on.

free parameters (5)
  • Gaussian sigma = 1
    Chosen by evaluating sigma in {0.5, 1, 2} on the ForenSynths test set (Section 4.5, Table 6); the value directly controls the LGA high-pass residual.
  • LVP random weights W_i = unspecified random distinct reals
    Eight distinct real numbers selected randomly for directional encoding (Section 3.2); no seed or values are given, making the feature map non-deterministic across runs.
  • Gradient magnitude epsilon = unspecified
    Introduced in Eq. (3) to avoid zero values; value not stated.
  • Optimizer hyperparameters = lr=0.0002, batch=32, epochs=40
    Adam optimizer settings in Section 4.1; chosen without reported sensitivity analysis.
  • Pruned ResNet architecture = not specified
    Classifier backbone described only as pruned ResNet (Section 3.3); pruning ratio and layer configuration are omitted.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Sobel and Gaussian convolution are valid feature extractors for edge and smoothing information.
    Standard image processing operations used in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Generated images exhibit local smoothing anomalies, blurred textures, and unnatural pixel variation patterns compared to real images.
    Stated in Abstract and Section 1 as the motivation; not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption Real images display higher complexity and randomness in local pixel patterns than generated images.
    Section 3.2 relies on this to make LVP discriminative.
  • ad hoc to paper Randomly selected distinct weights W_i preserve the directional information needed for classification.
    Section 3.2 asserts uniqueness avoids ambiguity, but no proof or analysis of weight choice is given.
  • domain assumption Training on ProGAN images from four LSUN categories yields features that transfer to unseen GAN and diffusion models.
    Section 4.1 trains only on ProGAN subsets and tests on other models; no domain adaptation or calibration is used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LDR-Net: A Novel Framework for AI-generated Image Detection via Localized Discrepancy Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZXHFDFP

@misc{pith2026250113475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LDR-Net: A Novel Framework for AI-generated Image Detection via Localized Discrepancy Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZXHFDFP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13475}
}
read the original abstract

With the rapid advancement of generative models, the visual quality of generated images has become nearly indistinguishable from the real ones, posing challenges to content authenticity verification. Existing methods for detecting AI-generated images primarily focus on specific forgery clues, which are often tailored to particular generative models like GANs or diffusion models. These approaches struggle to generalize across architectures. Building on the observation that generative images often exhibit local anomalies, such as excessive smoothness, blurred textures, and unnatural pixel variations in small regions, we propose the localized discrepancy representation network (LDR-Net), a novel approach for detecting AI-generated images. LDR-Net captures smoothing artifacts and texture irregularities, which are common but often overlooked. It integrates two complementary modules: local gradient autocorrelation (LGA) which models local smoothing anomalies to detect smoothing anomalies, and local variation pattern (LVP) which captures unnatural regularities by modeling the complexity of image patterns. By merging LGA and LVP features, a comprehensive representation of localized discrepancies can be provided. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our LDR-Net achieves state-of-the-art performance in detecting generated images and exhibits satisfactory generalization across unseen generative models. The code will be released upon acceptance of this paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed LDR-Net framework for AI-generated image detection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of gradient differences between generated im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of local binary encoding patterns between real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CAM visualization for real and generated images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Exposing the deception: Uncovering more forgery clues for deep- fake detection

    [Ba et al., 2024] Zhongjie Ba, Qingyu Liu, Zhenguang Liu, Shuang Wu, Feng Lin, Li Lu, and Kui Ren. Exposing the deception: Uncovering more forgery clues for deep- fake detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 719–728,

    work page 2024

  2. [6]

    Leveraging frequency analysis for deep fake im- age recognition

    [Frank et al., 2020] Joel Frank, Thorsten Eisenhofer, Lea Sch¨onherr, Asja Fischer, Dorothea Kolossa, and Thorsten Holz. Leveraging frequency analysis for deep fake im- age recognition. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3247–3258. PMLR,

    work page 2020

  3. [7]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    [He et al., 2016] Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770–778,

    2016

  4. [8]

    Detection of gan- generated images by estimating artifact similarity

    [Li et al., 2021] Weichuang Li, Peisong He, Haoliang Li, Hongxia Wang, and Ruimei Zhang. Detection of gan- generated images by estimating artifact similarity. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 29:862–866,

    work page 2021

  5. [10]

    Global texture enhancement for fake face detection in the wild

    [Liu et al., 2020] Zhengzhe Liu, Xiaojuan Qi, and Philip HS Torr. Global texture enhancement for fake face detection in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8060– 8069,

    work page 2020

  6. [11]

    Detecting gan- generated images by orthogonal training of multiple cnns

    [Mandelli et al., 2022a] 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 Process- ing (ICIP), pages 3091–3095. IEEE,

    work page 2022

  7. [12]

    Detecting gan- generated images by orthogonal training of multiple cnns

    [Mandelli et al., 2022b] 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 Process- ing (ICIP), pages 3091–3095,

    work page 2022

  8. [13]

    Detection of gan-generated fake images over social networks

    [Marra et al., 2018] Francesco Marra, Diego Gragnaniello, Davide Cozzolino, and Luisa Verdoliva. Detection of gan-generated fake images over social networks. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR), pages 384–389. IEEE,

    work page 2018

Show all 30 references
  1. [16]

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

    [Qian et al., 2020] Yuyang Qian, Guojun Yin, Lu Sheng, Zixuan Chen, and Jing Shao. Thinking in frequency: Face forgery detection by mining frequency-aware clues. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 86–103. Springer,

    2020

  2. [17]

    Zero-shot text-to-image generation

    [Ramesh et al., 2021] Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea V oss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8821–8831. Pmlr,

    2021

  3. [18]

    Grimm in wonderland: Prompt engineering with midjourney to illustrate fairy- tales

    [Ruskov, 2023] Martin Ruskov. Grimm in wonderland: Prompt engineering with midjourney to illustrate fairy- tales. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08961,

    2023 arXiv

  4. [19]

    Imagenet large scale visual recogni- tion challenge

    [Russakovsky et al., 2015] Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recogni- tion challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision, 11...

    2015

  5. [21]

    Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs

    [Schuhmann et al., 2021] C Schuhmann, R Vencu, R Beau- mont, R Kaczmarczyk, C Mullis, A Katta, T Coombes, J Jitsev, and A LAION Komatsuzaki. Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02114,

    2021 arXiv

  6. [22]

    De-fake: Detection and attribution of fake images generated by text-to-image generation models

    [Sha et al., 2023] Zeyang Sha, Zheng Li, Ning Yu, and Yang Zhang. De-fake: Detection and attribution of fake images generated by text-to-image generation models. In Pro- ceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Com- puter and Communications Security , pages 3418–3432,

    2023

  7. [23]

    Detecting deepfakes with self-blended images

    [Shiohara and Yamasaki, 2022] Kaede Shiohara and Toshi- hiko Yamasaki. Detecting deepfakes with self-blended images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 18720– 18729,

    2022

  8. [24]

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

    [Tan et al., 2023] 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...

    2023

  9. [25]

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

    [Tan et al., 2024] Chuangchuang Tan, Yao Zhao, Shikui Wei, Guanghua Gu, Ping Liu, and Yunchao Wei. Rethink- ing the up-sampling operations in cnn-based generative network for generalizable deepfake detection. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and P...

    2024

  10. [26]

    Cnn- generated images are surprisingly easy to spot

    [Wang et al., 2020] Sheng-Yu Wang, Oliver Wang, Richard Zhang, Andrew Owens, and Alexei A Efros. Cnn- generated images are surprisingly easy to spot... for now. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8695–8704,

    2020

  11. [27]

    Dire for diffusion-generated image detec- tion

    [Wang et al., 2023] Zhendong Wang, Jianmin Bao, Wen- gang Zhou, Weilun Wang, Hezhen Hu, Hong Chen, and Houqiang Li. Dire for diffusion-generated image detec- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 22445–22455,

    2023

  12. [28]

    Lsun: Construction of a large-scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop

    [Yu et al., 2015] Fisher Yu, Ari Seff, Yinda Zhang, Shu- ran Song, Thomas Funkhouser, and Jianxiong Xiao. Lsun: Construction of a large-scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03365,

    2015 arXiv

  13. [29]

    Improving gan-generated image detection generalization using unsu- pervised domain adaptation

    [Zhang et al., 2022] Mingxu Zhang, Hongxia Wang, Peisong He, Asad Malik, and Hanqing Liu. Improving gan-generated image detection generalization using unsu- pervised domain adaptation. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) , pages 1–6. IEEE,

    2022

  14. [30]

    Learning deep features for discriminative localization

    [Zhou et al., 2016] Bolei Zhou, Aditya Khosla, Agata Lapedriza, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. Learning deep features for discriminative localization. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 2921–2929, 2016

    2016

  15. [2015]

    Hybrid deep learning model based on gan and resnet for detecting fake faces

    [Safwat et al., 2024] Soha Safwat, Ayat Mahmoud, Ibrahim Eldesouky Fattoh, and Farid Ali. Hybrid deep learning model based on gan and resnet for detecting fake faces. IEEE Access,

    2024

  16. [2018]

    Multi-task learning for detecting and segmenting manipulated facial images and videos

    [Nguyen et al., 2019] Huy H Nguyen, Fuming Fang, Junichi Yamagishi, and Isao Echizen. Multi-task learning for detecting and segmenting manipulated facial images and videos. In 2019 IEEE 10th International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS) , pages...

    2019

  17. [2019]

    Towards universal fake image detectors that gen- eralize across generative models

    [Ojha et al., 2023] Utkarsh Ojha, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Towards universal fake image detectors that gen- eralize across generative models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 24480–24489,

    2023

  18. [2020]

    Think twice before detecting gan-generated fake images from their spectral domain imprints

    [Dong et al., 2022] Chengdong Dong, Ajay Kumar, and Eryun Liu. Think twice before detecting gan-generated fake images from their spectral domain imprints. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7865–7874,

    2022

  19. [2021]

    Distildire: A small, fast, cheap and lightweight diffusion synthesized deepfake detection

    [Lim et al., 2024] Yewon Lim, Changyeon Lee, Aerin Kim, and Oren Etzioni. Distildire: A small, fast, cheap and lightweight diffusion synthesized deepfake detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00856,

    2024 arXiv

  20. [2022]

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

    [Durall et al., 2020] Ricard Durall, Margret Keuper, and Ja- nis Keuper. Watch your up-convolution: Cnn based gener- ative deep neural networks are failing to reproduce spectral distributions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition...

    2020

  21. [2023]

    What makes fake images detectable? understanding properties that generalize

    [Chai et al., 2020] Lucy Chai, David Bau, Ser-Nam Lim, and Phillip Isola. What makes fake images detectable? understanding properties that generalize. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glas- gow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVI 16, pages 10...

    2020

  22. [2024]

    Improv- ing image generation with better captions

    [Betker et al., 2023] James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al. Improv- ing image generation with better captions. Computer Sci- ence. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf, 2(3):8,

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.