Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Detecting AI-generated Artwork

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2504.07078 v1 pith:6PMMHYKO submitted 2025-04-09 cs.CV cs.LG

Detecting AI-generated Artwork

classification cs.CV cs.LG
keywords ai-generatedartworkhuman-generatedlearningaccuracydistinguishingmachinemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The high efficiency and quality of artwork generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created new concerns and challenges for human artists. In particular, recent improvements in generative AI have made it difficult for people to distinguish between human-generated and AI-generated art. In this research, we consider the potential utility of various types of Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) models in distinguishing AI-generated artwork from human-generated artwork. We focus on three challenging artistic styles, namely, baroque, cubism, and expressionism. The learning models we test are Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). Our best experimental results yield a multiclass accuracy of 0.8208 over six classes, and an impressive accuracy of 0.9758 for the binary classification problem of distinguishing AI-generated from human-generated art.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. AI-generated Images Challenge Visual Trust in High-risk Scenarios

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    On SafeIMG, a new safety-focused benchmark of 1,131 GPT Image 2 images, the best VLM detects 49.5% of generated images and the best specialized detector 33.1%, versus 81.7% for humans.