A Sanity Check for AI-generated Image Detection
AI-generated image detection;Chameleon dataset;mixture-of-experts
Yes
No ethics review needed.
Mentioned in the weakness
1.A new datasets and evaluations to show the real status of AI-generated image detection are significant. This work shows that this task is far from solved.
2.The proposed Chameleon dataset is of high-quality and from real-world distributions/sources.
3.The proposed method is straightforward and effective. It combines both high-level semantic features and low-level pixel features.
4.The experiments show effectiveness of the method and the hardness of the new dataset.
5.This paper is easy to follow.
This paper proposes a new dataset for AI-generated image detection named Chameleon. It also proposes a new model for AI image detection. Comprehensive evaluations are conducted.
1.The experiments are mainly about the effectiveness of the proposed detection model. Some validation of the new dataset in its visual quality perspective will make the work stronger.  E.g., by human studies and comparisons between datasets.
2.In Table 6, it is better to also list the accuracy numbers under no perturbations for convenient comparison.
3.More recent related work can be compared or discussed.
Yes
N/A
No ethics review needed.
See Weaknesses.
This paper is relatively well-motivated as AI-generated image detection is a crucial issue. A new dataset named Chameleon is proposed for detecting AI-generated images.  I also find the evaluations thorough. The target issues of the paper are meaningful and worth exploring. The motivation is clear. The paper is easy to follow.
This paper challenges the assumptions in AI-generated image detection by proposing new training and testing settings. It introduces a benchmark called Chameleon to test human perception and shows significant performance drops in nine evaluated models. The paper also presents AIDE, a detector that combines low-level and high-level features, achieving state-of-the-art results but still offering room for improvement.
1.Over the past few years, a multitude of expansive and varied collections of AI-generated imagery have been crafted. Undertaking an in-depth analysis to contrast the newly introduced Chameleon dataset against its peers, considering factors like dataset size, utilized generation techniques, would serve to underscore its unique contributions.

2. It would be good if the authors collect fake images of fake news on the Internet and conduct experiments.
Yes
NA.
No ethics review needed.
- Regarding the dataset construction, this work provides 4 principles in p4, one of which is to cover a wide range of categories. I quite agree with the point. However, this dataset only contains 4 categories, scene, object, animal, and human, and in some categories, there may be only hundreds of photos (e.g. Animal fake images = 313). Then, given the limited number of samples and categories, how can the authors ensure whether the images are representative enough (or cover a wide range of images to be detected)? 

- Regarding the dataset construction, have the authors strictly obey to the 4 principles as presented in p4, or the generated images have been carefully selected and validated in 9 baseline methods beforehand in order to create such as challenging dataset?

- Experiments show 9 detectors cannot perform well on this dataset, this is good. However, I am eager to know the underlying reasons for their failure. Also, can the authors conduct a more fine-grained experiment that checks the accuracy of each of the 4 categories (scene, object, animal, and human), along with the overall category accuracy? I feel this might provide more insights. 

- Regarding the robustness evaluation of the proposed AIDE, if possible, please additionally evaluate JPEG compression with more realistic quality factors e.g. QF=75, QF=50 etc. Similarly, for Gaussian blur, please evaluate sigma=3 and 4.
This work's main contribution is that it has proposed a more challenging dataset with diverse categories, with which 9 AI-generated image detectors cannot handle the detection problem well. In the AIGC detection problem, I think it is important to create such a challenging baseline, particularly given the fact that the existing benchmark seems saturated.

Besides, a new detector with hybrid features (including frequency and semantics) is developed, and it shows improved performance on the AIGCDetectBenchmark, the GenImage benchmark, and Chameleon.
This work aims to answer whether the AI-generated image detection problem has been solved. There are two main contributions in this submission, first, they propose a more challenging dataset, called Chameleon, to evaluate the generation ability of existing fake image detectors. Then, they propose a new detector with hybrid detection features, called AIDE (AI-generated Image DEtector with Hybrid Feature), that shows improved detection performance on this new challenging dataset, compared with the existing baseline detector.
- This dataset only contains 4 categories, some of which only with hundreds of fake photos, this may not effectively cover the detection of a wide range of photos. 

- A recent work also adopts a mixture of expert architecture for fake image detection [1], which seems not be included as a baseline. It is supposed to discuss the major differences to AIDE, and serve as a possibly stronger baseline.

- Regarding JPEG comparisons, only QF=95 and QF=90 are evaluated, more real-world compression such as QF=75, and even more severe but practical case e.g. QF=50 are supposed to be evaluated, too.

[1] Liu, Z., Wang, H., Kang, Y., & Wang, S. (2024). Mixture of Low-rank Experts for Transferable AI-Generated Image Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04883.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
•	The questions are as mentioned above.
•	This paper provides a challenging AI generated image dataset, which is collected from real-life scenarios, and indicates that the problem for detecting AI-generated images is far from being solved.
•	The authors provide a new detection method, achieving better performance than previous methods.
•	This paper is organized well.
In this paper, the authors propose a new AI generated image dataset collected from the real-life scenarios, called Chameleon, in which the forgery images are genuinely challenging for human perception. Besides, this paper also provides a novel detection method, which exhibits better detection performance than previous SOTA methods.
•	The rationale behind how patches with the highest and lowest frequency highlight the distinctive characteristics of AI-generated images is unclear. The manuscript lacks a theoretical explanation for the proposed method.

•	In Table 2, comparing the entire dataset with subsets of the AIGCDetectBenchmark dataset seems unreasonable. A more appropriate comparison framework should be established.

•	Figure 4 does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that SFE (or PFE) can assist AIDE in focusing on specific semantic (or noise-related) clues. It may be beneficial to employ Grad-CAM to visualize the regions of interest when detecting forgery in images.
Yes
N/A
No ethics review needed.
Q1: What is the cost of data collection, and is it feasible to annotate more data to scale up the dataset?
S1: Comprehensive Dataset: The Chameleon dataset offers a large-scale and diverse collection of AI-generated and real images, providing a robust foundation for training and evaluating detection models.

S2: Detailed Performance Evaluation: The paper provides thorough baseline comparisons and benchmarking, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the AIDE detector across various scenarios.

S3: Practical Applications: The focus on detecting AI-generated images is highly relevant in today's digital landscape, with the paper identifying practical areas for improvement.
This paper introduces the Chameleon dataset and the AIDE detector for distinguishing between AI-generated and real images.
W1: Method Innovation: The combination of patch-level features and global features proposed in this paper is not novel. The methods compared are mostly from the first half of 2023 and earlier, and some of the latest work is not included (such as LaRE^2, Forgery-aware Adaptive Transformer, etc.).

W2: Inference Speed: The inference throughput of the proposed method is not provided, nor is it compared with previous methods. The AIDE uses multiple SRMs, ResNet50, and CLIP/ConvNext models, which are much larger than existing work like Gendet that uses just ResNet-50 as the classifier. This raises questions about whether the performance increase claimed in the article is due to increased FLOPS/PARAMS or the AIDE itself.

W3: Dataset Comparison: The Chameleon dataset has not been comprehensively compared with existing datasets (such as CNNSpot, AIGCDetect, GenImage, WildFake, etc.) in terms of data size, data sources, semantic categories, generation models, image quality, and other relevant factors. Its novelty has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024a,
title={A Sanity Check for {AI}-generated Image Detection},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=ODRHZrkOQM},
note={under review}
}
With the rapid development of generative models, discerning AI-generated content has evoked increasing attention from both industry and academia. In this paper, we conduct a sanity check on "whether the task of AI-generated image detection has been solved". To start with, we present Chameleon dataset, consisting AI-generated images that are genuinely challenging for human perception. To quantify the generalization of existing methods, we evaluate 9 off-the-shelf AI-generated image detectors on Chameleon dataset. Upon analysis, almost all models classify AI-generated images as real ones. Later, we propose AIDE (AI-generated Image DEtector with Hybrid Features), which leverages multiple experts to simultaneously extract visual artifacts and noise patterns. Specifically, to capture the high-level semantics, we utilize CLIP to compute the visual embedding. This effectively enables the model to discern AI-generated images based on semantics or contextual information; Secondly, we select the highest frequency patches and the lowest frequency patches in the image, and compute the low-level patchwise features, aiming to detect AI-generated images by low-level artifacts, for example, noise pattern, anti-aliasing, etc. While evaluating on existing benchmarks, for example, AIGCDetectBenchmark and GenImage, AIDE achieves +3.5% and +4.6% improvements to state-of-the-art methods, and on our proposed challenging Chameleon benchmarks, it also achieves the promising results, despite this problem for detecting AI-generated images is far from being solved. The dataset, codes, and pre-train models will be made publicly available.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
AI-generated image detection Chameleon dataset mixture-of-experts
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/ba42d4fb97b8c4b82253efb04f43fa9ba1a11088.pdf
applications to computer vision, audio, language, and other modalities
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
/attachment/5e1041ff01de94e0daca6cd21d5bde2fd49287ef.zip
A Sanity Check for AI-generated Image Detection
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission