arXiv AI

ChatGPT Images 2.5 in the Wild: A Launch-Period Dataset and Detector Evaluation

arXiv Computer Vision
Sep 17

ChatGPT Images 2.5 on Forgery Tasks: Testing Advertised Improvements Against Known Answers

arXiv:2609.13617v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: OpenAI released ChatGPT Images 2.5 on 8 September 2026, advertising more precise local edits, better consistency across edits, more faithful refere...

By Ankit Raj, Yuxin Zhang, Kidus Zewde, Tommy Duong, Jiaqi Gan, Xingyu Shen, Yuchen Zhou, Huaiyu Guo, Siyu Zhang, Simiao Ren
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 19

Not Every Mention Is a Claim: Rethinking Object Hallucination Detection in Vision-Language Models

The paper argues that many vision‑language model (VLM) hallucination metrics mistakenly treat every object mentioned in a caption as a claim that the object is present. It introduces NAME‑Bench, a dataset of 25,497 non‑assertive mentions labeled as depictive, purpose, negation, or hedged, and shows that current detectors flag these as hallucinations at high rates. Adding non‑assertive mentions as negatives improves detection on LLaVA‑1.5 but requires much more data for newer VLMs, indicating that conflating mention with assertion is a persistent problem.

By Hsin-Ling Hsu, Neeraja Kirtane, Kuan-Hao Huang
arXiv AI
Aug 18

Looks Can be Deceiving: Annotator and Reviewer Performance Across Imagery Sources in Crowd-Sourced Aerial Damage Assessment

arXiv:2608. 14942v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper presents the first known empirical investigation of annotator and reviewer performance across multi-source remotely sensed imagery, evaluating human labeling across drone, crewed aviation, and satellite views.

By Thomas Manzini, Priyankari Perali, Raisa Karnik, Stephen Johnson, Robin R. Murphy
arXiv Computer Vision
Oct 16

Beyond Generation: Using Multimodal LLMs as Detectors of LLM-Generated Deepfake Facial Images

The paper evaluates whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can serve as forensic detectors of deepfake facial images. Six MLLMs—including GPT-4o, GPT-5, GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5, Gemini 3, and Seed 1.6—were tested on a dataset of 400 images (50 authentic and 350 synthetic) generated by seven leading image models. Results show that several MLLMs achieve high detection accuracy, with GPT-5.2 reaching 97.9% in pairwise comparisons, but the presence of invisible SynthID watermarks can reduce detection performance by about 10% for Gemini.

By Olivia Salamon, Virginia N. L. Franqueira, Shujun Li