REVIEW 1 cited by
Shadows Don't Lie and Lines Can't Bend! Generative Models don't know Projective Geometry...for now
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
read the original abstract
Generative models can produce impressively realistic images. This paper demonstrates that generated images have geometric features different from those of real images. We build a set of collections of generated images, prequalified to fool simple, signal-based classifiers into believing they are real. We then show that prequalified generated images can be identified reliably by classifiers that only look at geometric properties. We use three such classifiers. All three classifiers are denied access to image pixels, and look only at derived geometric features. The first classifier looks at the perspective field of the image, the second looks at lines detected in the image, and the third looks at relations between detected objects and shadows. Our procedure detects generated images more reliably than SOTA local signal based detectors, for images from a number of distinct generators. Saliency maps suggest that the classifiers can identify geometric problems reliably. We conclude that current generators cannot reliably reproduce geometric properties of real images.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Bridging the Gap Between Ideal and Real-world Evaluation: Benchmarking AI-Generated Image Detection in Challenging Scenarios
AI-generated image detectors lose substantial accuracy on images shared over social media or scanned/re-photographed, while humans improve quickly after seeing two examples.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.