arXiv AI

Defake-o3: From Speculative Rationales to Verifiable Evidence for Explainable AIGI Detection

arXiv:2608. 16259v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid progress of image generation models calls for AI-generated image (AIGI) detectors that are not only accurate but also explainable and reliable.

arXiv AI
Aug 24

Explainable Deepfake Detection with Feature-robust Augmentation and Evidence-grounded Explanation Optimization

Explainable Deepfake Detection with Feature-robust Augmentation and Evidence-grounded Explanation Optimization proposes a new framework that improves deepfake detection and interpretability. The approach introduces Feature-robust Augmentation—diversified degradation-aware strategies combined with supervised contrastive learning and a mean-teacher architecture—to maintain accuracy on low-quality images. For explanations, it employs evidence-grounded preference optimization, guiding the model to focus on genuine manipulation traces by learning from chosen-rejected explanation pairs that omit evidence or inject irrelevant details. The method achieved first place in the ACM Multimedia 2026 Explainable Deepfake Detection Challenge and is publicly available on GitHub.

By Zhu Xu, Jiaqi Tang, Pokai Chen, Yuxin Peng, Yang Liu
arXiv AI
Jul 21

Seeing What Is Actually There: PriVE-Bench and PriVE-Tools for Counterfactual Evaluation of Agentic Visual Evidence in VLMs

arXiv:2607. 16311v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) often answer visual questions using learned language and category priors rather than grounding their predictions in the image itself.

By Jingyu Sun, Jiachen Tu, Yuyang Xue, Yaoxin Jiang, Guoyi Xu, Zhengtao Yao, Rui Qian, Yizheng Sun, Hongpeng Zhou, Jingyuan Sun, Yan Lin
arXiv AI
Jun 26

Perception, Verdict, and Evolution: Hindsight-Driven Self-Refining Forensics Agent for AI-Generated Image Detection

arXiv:2606. 26552v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid advancement of generative models presents a significant challenge to existing deepfake detection methods, particularly given the widespread dissemination of highly realistic AI-generated images.

By Yangjun Wu, Keyu Yan, Yu Liu, Jingren Zhou, Fei Huang, Rong Zhang, Zhou Zhao, Fei Wu
arXiv AI
Sep 18

FORGE: Forensic Reasoning with Grounded Evidence

FORGE is a forensic deepfake analysis system that provides region‑grounded natural language explanations for image manipulations. It addresses the inductive bias mismatch of multimodal large language models by adding a Vision‑Only Model trained on dense patch prediction, allowing the language model to interleave tokens with preserved spatial correspondence. Across face‑manipulated and fully synthetic content, FORGE delivers fine‑grained attribute queries and outperforms in‑domain baselines, with region‑specific evaluation and human studies confirming explanation faithfulness.

By Rohit Kundu, Shan Jia, Vishal Mohanty, Athula Balachandran, Amit K. Roy-Chowdhury
arXiv AI
6d ago

A Synthetic Ground-Truth Framework for the Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods

The paper introduces a synthetic ground‑truth framework for evaluating explainable AI (XAI) methods, addressing the lack of reliable evaluation procedures. By using controlled interventions to create datasets where the importance of input components is known, the framework generates ground‑truth explanations that align with the model’s actual decision process. The authors apply this approach to binary images, tabular data, and time series, and find that nine popular XAI methods exhibit significant limitations, underscoring the need for intervention‑based benchmarks.

By Miquel Mir\'o-Nicolau, Francesco Spinnato, Riccardo Guidotti
arXiv AI
Aug 26

Seeing vs. Believing: Evaluating the Language Bias of Open-Source MLLMs in Counter-Intuitive Scenes

The paper introduces CAIT, a benchmark of 400 synthetic scenes featuring counter‑intuitive actions that challenge multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Human participants and proprietary models like Claude and Gemini perform well, but standard open‑source instruction‑tuned MLLMs fail, largely due to a strong language prior that overrides contradictory visual evidence. The study shows that Chain‑of‑Thought reasoning can help but introduces new issues, while targeted fine‑tuning and structured prompting can reduce reliance on language priors and improve visual grounding.

By Chen Ling, Tongwei Zhang, Hanqian Li, Nai Ding