Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

"Humor, Art, or Misinformation?": A Multimodal Dataset for Intent-Aware Synthetic Image Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read S-HArM, a new benchmark for intent-aware classification of AI-generated images, shows the task is far from solved: the best model reaches 71.6% accuracy on in-the-wild content while exceeding 96% on synthetic validation data.

desk verdict Useful dataset, real gap, but platform-derived labels confound source with intent, so the headline numbers need qualification. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20670 v2 pith:6RTFY6VU submitted 2025-08-28 cs.CV cs.MM

Anastasios Skoularikis , Stefanos-Iordanis Papadopoulos , Symeon Papadopoulos , Panagiotis C. Petrantonakis This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.MM
keywords intent-awareclassificationsyntheticimagedetectionmultimodaldatasetAI-generatedcontenthumor/satiremisinformationStableDiffusionin-the-wildbenchmark
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 introduces S-HArM, a multimodal benchmark of 9,576 in-the-wild AI-generated image–text pairs from Twitter/X and Reddit, labeled as humor/satire, art, or misinformation, plus three synthetic training sets of about 87,500 pairs each, generated with Stable Diffusion from real images under different prompting strategies. It aims to establish that intent-aware classification of synthetic images—telling whether an AI image was made to amuse, express art, or deceive—is a real and largely unsolved problem, distinct from binary real-versus-fake detection. The best model, an MLP over concatenated CLIP image and text embeddings trained on image-guided data, reaches 71.6% accuracy on the benchmark while exceeding 96% on synthetic validation data. The authors read this gap as evidence that intent lives in subtle cross-modal cues and that current architectures, including large vision-language models, are not yet equipped to reason about it.

What carries the argument

S-HArM, the dataset itself, is the central instrument: an evaluation half of 9,576 platform-harvested image–text pairs whose labels come from subreddit themes and flairs, Twitter/X Community Notes indicators, and an art-community membership, and a training half of real images re-synthesized with Stable Diffusion under three conditioning regimes—image-guided, description-guided, and multimodally-guided. This two-part construction operationalizes 'intent' as a three-way label and lets the authors vary the fidelity of visual context in training data while holding the classification task fixed.

What would settle it

Train the same three-layer MLP used in the paper to predict each S-HArM pair's source platform (Twitter/X versus Reddit) instead of its intent label; if that proxy classifier clearly beats chance while intent accuracy remains near 71.6%, then source-specific cues—not intent understanding—may be driving the reported result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an AI-generated image's purpose cannot be reliably read from pixels or captions alone, and that no current model closes the gap between controlled synthetic data and real social-media content. Empirically, the paper shows that image- and multimodally-guided synthetic training data transfer better than description-guided data because they preserve original visual context, yet even the best configuration—concatenated CLIP embeddings fed to a three-layer MLP—reaches only 71.6% accuracy on the in-the-wild benchmark versus 96.6% on synthetic validation. Text-only models beat image-only models, and multimodal models beat both, supporting the claim that intent emerges from

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark labels are taken from platform conventions—subreddit themes and flairs, Community Notes flags, and art-community membership—and the paper assumes these faithfully represent the creator's intent rather than the community's interpretation of the post.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A reusable in-the-wild benchmark now exists for comparing intent-aware synthetic-image classifiers, with a fixed 9,576-pair test set.
  • The roughly 25-point drop from synthetic validation to in-the-wild accuracy implies that synthetic-data performance cannot stand in for real-world readiness; benchmarks need platform-sourced content.
  • Because multimodal and text-only models outperform image-only models, intent classification should be framed as a multimodal reasoning task rather than a visual-forensics one.
  • Synthetic training data that preserves original visual structure (image- and multimodally-guided) is more useful than description-guided data, guiding how future training sets should be generated.
  • The persistent satire/misinformation confusion, which nudging partly fixes, indicates the task needs an explicit model of the satire boundary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If platform-source (Twitter versus Reddit) predicts labels better than image content does, part of the reported accuracy may be source leakage; the paper does not report a source-removal or source-split experiment.
  • Independent re-labeling of a random sample would test whether the three-way intent labels are reliable; if human agreement is low, 71.6% may be close to the annotation ceiling rather than a model failure.
  • The Twitter-humor class collapses to 13.6% accuracy, which is confounded with class-source imbalance; balancing intent classes across platforms is a concrete next step.
  • The LVLM results suggest a testable extension: few-shot prompting or chain-of-thought reasoning might close much of the zero-shot gap without fine-tuning.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces S-HArM, a multimodal dataset for intent-aware classification of AI-generated image-text pairs into Humor/Satire, Art, or Misinformation. The evaluation benchmark contains 9,576 in-the-wild pairs collected from Twitter/X and Reddit, using platform-derived labels: subreddit identity and flairs for Reddit, Community Notes fields for Twitter, and the Art Community for Twitter art. The training set, about 87,522 samples per prompting strategy, is generated from real images with Stable Diffusion using three strategies: image-guided, description-guided, and multimodally-guided. The paper evaluates a wide range of models—unimodal and multimodal MLPs, contrastive methods, reconstruction networks, attention models, and LVLMs—and reports that the best model reaches 71.6% accuracy on the in-the-wild benchmark versus 96.6% on the synthetic validation set. It further claims that image-guided and multimodally-guided training generalize better than description-guided training due to preserved visual context, and that multimodal models outperform unimodal baselines.

Significance. If the benchmark's validity is established, S-HArM would be a useful resource for studying intent in synthetic media, a largely underexplored problem. The paper ships a new dataset, code, and an extensive comparison across many model families, with means and standard deviations over 10 seeds. The gap between synthetic validation and in-the-wild performance is a plausible and important finding. However, the central quantitative claims depend on the assumption that platform-derived labels faithfully represent creator intent. Because class and platform are nearly collinear (Section 3.1, Table 2), the reported accuracies and the comparison across generation strategies may partly reflect source-specific cues rather than a general understanding of intent. The paper is valuable as a dataset contribution, but the intended benchmark claim needs stronger validation before the headline numbers can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Tables 2 and 6] The evaluation labels are assigned from platform signals: subreddit identity/flairs for Reddit, Community Notes indicators for Twitter, and art-community membership for Twitter art. This makes class and platform nearly collinear: all 3,192 Misinformation samples are from Twitter, Humor/Satire is 2,756 Reddit vs 436 Twitter, and Art is split 1,596/1,596 (Table 2). A model can therefore achieve high accuracy by exploiting platform-specific visual styles, meme templates, or textual conventions rather than by inferring intent. The per-class results in Table 6 are consistent with this concern: Twitter Humor/Satire accuracy is 13.56% while Reddit Humor/Satire is 69.59%, and Twitter Misinformation is 85.59%. This confound threatens the headline 71.6% result and also the conclusion that image-guided training 'preserves visual context': preserving source-correlated visual cues could explain the g
  2. [§4.2.1, Table 4] The claim that description-guided training 'consistently underperforms' and that image-guided/multimodally-guided strategies generalize better is not supported by the reported numbers. Across the rows of Table 4, description-guided is not uniformly worst: e.g., Shared Reconstructor (Replace) gives 70.77% for description-guided vs 70.54% for image-guided and 71.14% for multimodally-guided; Contrastive Triplet gives 69.94% (description-guided) vs 69.51% (image-guided); Class-specific Reconstructors (Replace) give 69.22% (description-guided) vs 69.64% (image-guided) and 68.92% (multimodally-guided). The average-row difference is under one percentage point, and per-seed standard deviations are around 0.7-0.8. No significance test is reported. Please provide paired tests across the 10 seeds (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or paired t-test, with multiple-comparison correction), or report confidenc
  3. [§3.3, §4.2.3] The RINE detector flags 82% of in-the-wild samples as synthetic, leaving 18% unverified. The paper acknowledges that some of these may be real images. If the fraction of non-synthetic images varies by class or by source, the benchmark may partly measure a real-vs-synthetic distinction rather than intent. This is especially relevant given the near-ceiling performance on the synthetic validation set and the much lower in-the-wild accuracy. Please report RINE flag rates per class and per source, and run a sensitivity analysis of the main comparisons after excluding non-flagged samples. This would clarify whether the reported difficulty is an intent-understanding gap or a distribution shift confound.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1.1] The filtering thresholds (upvote ratio >0.9, minimum title length of four words, minimum favourites count of five) are presented without sensitivity analysis. A brief discussion of how robust the dataset composition is to these choices would strengthen reproducibility.
  2. [§3.3] Typo: 'vest majority' should be 'vast majority'.
  3. [§4.2.3] Typo: 'this this performance' should be 'this performance'.
  4. [§4.2.2, Table 5] The 'Nudged' and two-stage prompts explicitly bias the model toward the misinformation class when uncertain. Reporting per-class accuracy alongside overall accuracy would make the comparison fairer and would clarify whether the improvement comes from a prior shift or from better reasoning.
  5. [Table 1 vs Table 2] The relationship between the collected counts in Table 1 and the final balanced counts in Table 2 is not entirely transparent. Please clarify how under-sampling was applied to obtain the 2,756 Reddit Humor/Satire examples from the subreddit counts listed.
  6. [Dataset release] The paper does not mention licensing or ethical considerations for the social-media-derived data. A short statement about data redistribution terms, privacy, and intended use would be appropriate for a dataset paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main results are held-out empirical measurements, and the only same-group element (RINE dataset sanity check) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—71.6% best accuracy, image-/multimodally-guided training generalizing better, and multimodality helping—are empirical measurements on held-out 'in the wild' pairs, not quantities defined by fitted parameters. No equation in the paper defines an accuracy or generalization gap in terms of the labels or prompts used to build S-HArM. The evaluation labels are derived from platform metadata (subreddits, flairs, Community Notes), but that is a construct-validity caveat, not circularity: the reported numbers do not reduce to those labels by construction. The only same-group citation that touches the derivation chain is RINE, used in Section 3.3 as a sanity check that 82% of collected samples are synthetic; this supports dataset curation, not the intent-classification conclusions, and RINE itself is an externally published detector. The source–class entanglement (all Misinformation from Twitter, most Humor/Satire from Reddit) could make the image-guided advantage partly reflect source leakage rather than intent understanding, but this is a benchmark validity threat, not a circular derivation. Accordingly no circular step meets the standard of quote-and-reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical, so no new theoretical entities are introduced. The main assumptions are domain-level: label reliability, representativeness of synthetic training data, and sufficiency of CLIP embeddings.

free parameters (5)
  • image-to-text weight in image-guided generation = 0.9 real image, 0.1 text
    Chosen by hand; affects visual fidelity of synthetic training images and thus the distribution shift between training and test.
  • multimodal weights in multimodally-guided generation = 0.5 image, 0.5 text
    Chosen by hand to balance conditioning; no ablation shown.
  • upvote ratio threshold for Reddit posts = 0.9
    Arbitrary threshold for selecting high-approval posts; could influence label quality and content diversity.
  • minimum title length = 4 words
    Ad hoc filter for relevance; not justified.
  • minimum favourites count for Twitter art = 5
    Ad hoc engagement threshold to filter out low-quality posts.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Community Notes misinformation and satire fields, and subreddit categories/flairs, correctly identify the intent of AI-generated images.
    The entire label set of the evaluation benchmark and training set depends on these platform signals; no human verification of intent is reported. Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Synthetic training images generated by Stable Diffusion XL using the three prompting strategies are representative of in-the-wild AI-generated content.
    The generalization claims rest on this bridge; the large validation-to-in-the-wild gap (96.6% to 71.6%) suggests this assumption is only partially true. Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption The original post text (title/caption) conveys creator intent and is retained in training samples.
    The text-only baselines and multimodal models rely on this; if text is uninformative or source-correlated, results are affected. Section 3.2.2.
  • domain assumption CLIP ViT-L/14 embeddings are sufficient to capture visual and textual cues for intent classification.
    All base models and extractors use CLIP; if this representation misses intent-relevant information, performance is capped. Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "Humor, Art, or Misinformation?": A Multimodal Dataset for Intent-Aware Synthetic Image Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6RTFY6VU

@misc{pith2026250820670,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "Humor, Art, or Misinformation?": A Multimodal Dataset for Intent-Aware Synthetic Image Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6RTFY6VU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20670}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in multimodal AI have enabled progress in detecting synthetic and out-of-context content. However, existing efforts largely overlook the intent behind AI-generated images. To fill this gap, we introduce S-HArM, a multimodal dataset for intent-aware classification, comprising 9,576 "in the wild" image-text pairs from Twitter/X and Reddit, labeled as Humor/Satire, Art, or Misinformation. Additionally, we explore three prompting strategies (image-guided, description-guided, and multimodally-guided) to construct a large-scale synthetic training dataset with Stable Diffusion. We conduct an extensive comparative study including modality fusion, contrastive learning, reconstruction networks, attention mechanisms, and large vision-language models. Our results show that models trained on image- and multimodally-guided data generalize better to "in the wild" content, due to preserved visual context. However, overall performance remains limited, highlighting the complexity of inferring intent and the need for specialized architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20670 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed pipeline. We collect “in the wild” AI-generated images to build the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three prompt strategies used with Stable Diffusion to generate synthetic images based on real images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of synthetic images from the three generation prompt strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey on generative adversarial networks: Variants, applications, and training.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(8):1–49, 2021

    Abdul Jabbar, Xi Li, and Bourahla Omar. A survey on generative adversarial networks: Variants, applications, and training.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(8):1–49, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications.ACM Computing Surveys, 56(4):1–39, 2023

    Ling Yang, Zhilong Zhang, Yang Song, Shenda Hong, Runsheng Xu, Yue Zhao, Wentao Zhang, Bin Cui, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications.ACM Computing Surveys, 56(4):1–39, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Artificial intelligence in digital media: The era of deepfakes.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 1(3):138–147, 2020

    Stamatis Karnouskos. Artificial intelligence in digital media: The era of deepfakes.IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 1(3):138–147, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Cnn-generated images are surprisingly easy to spot

    Sheng-Yu Wang, Oliver Wang, Richard Zhang, Andrew Owens, and Alexei A Efros. Cnn-generated images are surprisingly easy to spot... for now. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8695–8704, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Deep image fingerprint: Towards low budget synthetic image detection and model lineage analysis

    Sergey Sinitsa and Ohad Fried. Deep image fingerprint: Towards low budget synthetic image detection and model lineage analysis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 4067–4076, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Synthbuster: Towards detection of diffusion model generated images.IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing, 5:1–9, 2023

    Quentin Bammey. Synthbuster: Towards detection of diffusion model generated images.IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing, 5:1–9, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Masksim: Detection of synthetic images by masked spectrum similarity analysis

    Yanhao Li, Quentin Bammey, Marina Gardella, Tina Nikoukhah, Jean-Michel Morel, Miguel Colom, and Rafael Grompone V on Gioi. Masksim: Detection of synthetic images by masked spectrum similarity analysis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, pages 3855–3865, June 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Texturecrop: Enhancing synthetic image detection through texture-based cropping

    Despina Konstantinidou, Christos Koutlis, and Symeon Papadopoulos. Texturecrop: Enhancing synthetic image detection through texture-based cropping. InProceedings of the Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 1459–1468, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Generalizable synthetic image detection via language-guided contrastive learning, 2025

    Haiwei Wu, Jiantao Zhou, and Shile Zhang. Generalizable synthetic image detection via language-guided contrastive learning, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Leveraging representations from intermediate encoder-blocks for synthetic image detection

    Christos Koutlis and Symeon Papadopoulos. Leveraging representations from intermediate encoder-blocks for synthetic image detection. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 394–411. Springer, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Any-resolution ai-generated image detection by spectral learning

    Dimitrios Karageorgiou, Symeon Papadopoulos, Ioannis Kompatsiaris, and Efstratios Gavves. Any-resolution ai-generated image detection by spectral learning. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 18706–18717, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Verifying multimedia use at mediaeval 2015

    Christina Boididou, Katerina Andreadou, Symeon Papadopoulos, Duc Tien Dang Nguyen, Giulia Boato, Michael Riegler, and Yiannis Kompatsiaris. Verifying multimedia use at mediaeval 2015. InMediaEval 2015, volume

    2015

  5. [13]

    Verifying information with multimedia content on twitter: a comparative study of automated approaches.Multimedia tools and applications, 77(12):15545–15571, 2018

    Christina Boididou, Stuart E Middleton, Zhiwei Jin, Symeon Papadopoulos, Duc-Tien Dang-Nguyen, Giulia Boato, and Yiannis Kompatsiaris. Verifying information with multimedia content on twitter: a comparative study of automated approaches.Multimedia tools and applications, 77(12...

    2018

  6. [14]

    Novel visual and statistical image features for microblogs news verification.IEEE transactions on multimedia, 19(3):598–608, 2016

    Zhiwei Jin, Juan Cao, Yongdong Zhang, Jianshe Zhou, and Qi Tian. Novel visual and statistical image features for microblogs news verification.IEEE transactions on multimedia, 19(3):598–608, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    r/fakeddit: A new multimodal benchmark dataset for fine-grained fake news detection, 2020

    Kai Nakamura, Sharon Levy, and William Yang Wang. r/fakeddit: A new multimodal benchmark dataset for fine-grained fake news detection, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Cosmos: catching out-of-context image misuse using self-supervised learning

    Shivangi Aneja, Chris Bregler, and Matthias Nießner. Cosmos: catching out-of-context image misuse using self-supervised learning. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 37, pages 14084–14092, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Newsclippings: Automatic generation of out-of-context multi- modal media.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05893, 2021

    Grace Luo, Trevor Darrell, and Anna Rohrbach. Newsclippings: Automatic generation of out-of-context multi- modal media.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05893, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Humor, Art, or Misinformation?

    Ekraam Sabir, Wael AbdAlmageed, Yue Wu, and Prem Natarajan. Deep multimodal image-repurposing detection. InProceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1337–1345, 2018. 12 “Humor, Art, or Misinformation?”: A Multimodal Dataset for Intent-Aware Synt...

    2018

  11. [19]

    Self-supervised distilled learning for multi-modal misinformation identification

    Michael Mu, Sreyasee Das Bhattacharjee, and Junsong Yuan. Self-supervised distilled learning for multi-modal misinformation identification. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2819–2828, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Syn- thetic misinformers: Generating and combating multimodal misinformation

    Stefanos-Iordanis Papadopoulos, Christos Koutlis, Symeon Papadopoulos, and Panagiotis Petrantonakis. Syn- thetic misinformers: Generating and combating multimodal misinformation. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM International Workshop on Multimedia AI against Disinformation, pages...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Open-domain, content-based, multi-modal fact-checking of out-of-context images via online resources

    Sahar Abdelnabi, Rakibul Hasan, and Mario Fritz. Open-domain, content-based, multi-modal fact-checking of out-of-context images via online resources. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 14940–14949, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Support or refute: Analyzing the stance of evidence to detect out-of-context mis-and disinformation

    Xin Yuan, Jie Guo, Weidong Qiu, Zheng Huang, and Shujun Li. Support or refute: Analyzing the stance of evidence to detect out-of-context mis-and disinformation. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4268–4280, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Red- dot: Multimodal fact-checking via relevant evidence detection.IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2025

    Stefanos-Iordanis Papadopoulos, Christos Koutlis, Symeon Papadopoulos, and Panagiotis C Petrantonakis. Red- dot: Multimodal fact-checking via relevant evidence detection.IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Ecenet: explainable and context-enhanced network for muti-modal fact verification

    Fanrui Zhang, Jiawei Liu, Qiang Zhang, Esther Sun, Jingyi Xie, and Zheng-Jun Zha. Ecenet: explainable and context-enhanced network for muti-modal fact verification. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 1231–1240, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 13052–13062, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Stefanos-Iordanis Papadopoulos, Christos Koutlis, Symeon Papadopoulos, and Panagiotis C Petrantonakis. Similarity over factuality: Are we making progress on multimodal out-of-context misinformation detection? In 2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Visio...

    2025

  19. [27]

    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. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 9291–9298, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Deep learning for deepfakes creation and detection: A survey.Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 223:103525, 2022

    Thanh Thi Nguyen, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, Dung Tien Nguyen, Duc Thanh Nguyen, Thien Huynh-The, Saeid Nahavandi, Thanh Tam Nguyen, Quoc-Viet Pham, and Cuong M Nguyen. Deep learning for deepfakes creation and detection: A survey.Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 223:103525, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    The disaster of misinformation: a review of research in social media

    Sadiq Muhammed T and Saji K Mathew. The disaster of misinformation: a review of research in social media. International journal of data science and analytics, 13(4):271–285, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review.Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(1):30, 2023

    Esma Aïmeur, Sabrine Amri, and Gilles Brassard. Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review.Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(1):30, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Visual news: Benchmark and challenges in news image captioning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03743, 2020

    Fuxiao Liu, Yinghan Wang, Tianlu Wang, and Vicente Ordonez. Visual news: Benchmark and challenges in news image captioning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03743, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Verite: a robust benchmark for multimodal misinformation detection accounting for unimodal bias.International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval, 13(1):4, 2024

    Stefanos-Iordanis Papadopoulos, Christos Koutlis, Symeon Papadopoulos, and Panagiotis C Petrantonakis. Verite: a robust benchmark for multimodal misinformation detection accounting for unimodal bias.International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval, 13(1):4, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    Artifact: A large-scale dataset with artificial and factual images for generalizable and robust synthetic image detection

    Md Awsafur Rahman, Bishmoy Paul, Najibul Haque Sarker, Zaber Ibn Abdul Hakim, and Shaikh Anowarul Fattah. Artifact: A large-scale dataset with artificial and factual images for generalizable and robust synthetic image detection. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Image Pr...

    2023

  27. [35]

    On the detection of synthetic images generated by diffusion models

    Riccardo Corvi, Davide Cozzolino, Giada Zingarini, Giovanni Poggi, Koki Nagano, and Luisa Verdoliva. On the detection of synthetic images generated by diffusion models. InICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages ...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 740–755. Springer, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Raise: A raw images dataset for digital image forensics

    Duc-Tien Dang-Nguyen, Cecilia Pasquini, Valentina Conotter, and Giulia Boato. Raise: A raw images dataset for digital image forensics. InProceedings of the 6th ACM multimedia systems conference, pages 219–224, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Humor, Art, or Misinformation?

    Thomas Gloe and Rainer Böhme. The’dresden image database’for benchmarking digital image forensics. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM symposium on applied computing, pages 1584–1590, 2010. 13 “Humor, Art, or Misinformation?”: A Multimodal Dataset for Intent-Aware Synthetic Image Detection

    2010

  31. [39]

    Bird and Ahmad Lotfi

    Jordan J. Bird and Ahmad Lotfi. Cifake: Image classification and explainable identification of ai-generated synthetic images.IEEE Access, 12:15642–15650, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Twigma: A dataset of ai-generated images with metadata from twitter.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:37748–37760, 2023

    Yiqun Chen and James Y Zou. Twigma: A dataset of ai-generated images with metadata from twitter.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:37748–37760, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Navigating the challenges of ai-generated image detection in the wild: What truly matters?, 2025

    Despina Konstantinidou, Dimitrios Karageorgiou, Christos Koutlis, Olga Papadopoulou, Emmanouil Schinas, and Symeon Papadopoulos. Navigating the challenges of ai-generated image detection in the wild: What truly matters?, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    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. InInternational conference on machine learning, pag...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Supervised contrastive learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:18661–18673, 2020

    Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. Supervised contrastive learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:18661–18673, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Research on image super-resolution reconstruction mechanism based on convolutional neural network

    Hao Yan, Zixiang Wang, Zhengjia Xu, Zhuoyue Wang, Zhizhong Wu, and Ranran Lyu. Research on image super-resolution reconstruction mechanism based on convolutional neural network. InProceedings of the 2024 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Automation and H...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Defeating deepfakes via adversarial visual reconstruction

    Ziwen He, Wei Wang, Weinan Guan, Jing Dong, and Tieniu Tan. Defeating deepfakes via adversarial visual reconstruction. InProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 2464–2472, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Latent multimodal reconstruction for misinformation detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06010, 2025

    Stefanos-Iordanis Papadopoulos, Christos Koutlis, Symeon Papadopoulos, and Panagiotis C Petrantonakis. Latent multimodal reconstruction for misinformation detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06010, 2025. 14

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.