Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

AI-generated Image Detection: Passive or Watermark?

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 2411.13553 v2 pith:ZKS2MFM2 submitted 2024-11-20 cs.CR cs.CVcs.LG

AI-generated Image Detection: Passive or Watermark?

classification cs.CR cs.CVcs.LG
keywords detectorspassivewatermark-basedai-generatedimagesbenchmarkperturbationstypes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

While text-to-image models offer numerous benefits, they also pose significant societal risks. Detecting AI-generated images is crucial for mitigating these risks. Detection methods can be broadly categorized into passive and watermark-based approaches: passive detectors rely on artifacts present in AI-generated images, whereas watermark-based detectors proactively embed watermarks into such images. A key question is which type of detector performs better in terms of effectiveness, robustness, and efficiency. However, the current literature lacks a comprehensive understanding of this issue. In this work, we aim to bridge that gap by developing ImageDetectBench, the first comprehensive benchmark to compare the effectiveness, robustness, and efficiency of passive and watermark-based detectors. Our benchmark includes four datasets, each containing a mix of AI-generated and non-AI-generated images. We evaluate five passive detectors and four watermark-based detectors against eight types of common perturbations and three types of adversarial perturbations. Our benchmark results reveal several interesting findings. For instance, watermark-based detectors consistently outperform passive detectors, both in the presence and absence of perturbations. Based on these insights, we provide recommendations for detecting AI-generated images, e.g., when both types of detectors are applicable, watermark-based detectors should be the preferred choice. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/moyangkuo/ImageDetectBench.git.

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. A Comprehensive Dataset for Human vs. AI Generated Image Detection

    cs.CV 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    MS COCOAI provides 96,000 caption-aligned real and synthetic images from five generators, with baseline scores of about 0.80 for real-vs-AI detection and 0.45 for generator attribution.