arXiv AI

Can You Trust What You See? Human and AI Detection of Synthetic Legal Evidence

arXiv:2606. 07613v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Visual evidence has long been treated as a reliable form of legal proof, but advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are undermining that assumption.

arXiv AI
4d ago

A Benchmark & Dataset for Detecting AI-Manipulated Visual Evidence in the Court System

arXiv:2609.37783v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Photographic evidence is becoming increasingly vulnerable to forms of alteration and fabrication that existing legal and technical workflows are not...

By Kelly McConvey, Sajad Ebrahimi, Nima Jamali, Jalehsadat Mahdavimoghaddam, Matina Mahdizadeh Sani, Maksym Taranukhin, Wentao Zhang, Jacquelyn Burkell, Yuntian Deng, Karen Eltis, Maura R. Grossman, Vered Shwartz, Ebrahim Bagheri
arXiv Computer Vision
Sep 22

Dissecting Agentic Forensics: The Role of Triage, Prompting, and Evidence Arbitration in Open-World Fake Image Detection

The paper investigates an agentic framework for open‑world fake image detection that combines specialist detectors with per‑detector triage, prompting, and conflict‑aware evidence arbitration. Experiments across six configurations and three multimodal large language model backbones reveal that naive detector fusion yields high false‑positive rates, while triage and prompting consistently filter unreliable evidence. The most significant improvement comes from the reasoning component: a stronger judge markedly outperforms a weaker one, especially under distribution shift, and overall manipulation recall is nearly saturated, highlighting that the key challenge lies in calibrating trust and arbitrating conflicting forensic evidence rather than detecting manipulations themselves.

By Xianlong Li (IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Italy), Pietro Bongini (University of Siena, Italy), Niccol\'o Pancino (University of Siena, Italy), Marco Blanchini (IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Italy), Benedetta Tondi (University of Siena, Italy), Mauro Barni (University of Siena, Italy)
arXiv AI
Jun 9

The CIFAR Synthetic Evidence Corpus for Detecting AI-Generated Evidence

arXiv:2606. 07916v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The growing ability of generative models to produce realistic documents poses a direct challenge to evidentiary workflows in the justice system and the courts, where decisions increasingly depend on the authenticity of evidence such as receipts, communications, and administrative records.

By Kelly McConvey, Jalehsadat Mahdavimoghaddam, Nima Jamali, Maksym Taranukhin, Sajad Ebrahimi, Wentao Zhang, Yuntian Deng, Karen Eltis, Maura R. Grossman, Vered Shwartz, Ebrahim Bagheri
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
Aug 11

MMArch: Benchmarking Multimodal Reasoning Grounded in Architectural Evidence

arXiv:2608. 09281v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) perform strongly on engineering imagery, yet existing benchmarks mostly test drawing recognition, information extraction, or compliance checking, leaving open whether models can combine distributed visual evidence with engineering principles to reach a conclusion.

By Chenxu Du, Kang An, Tengyue Wang, Zhongyu Yang, Xinqi Yang, Yuanchi Zhu, Hebao Zhu, Ziliang Wang, Faqiang Qian, Yunli Yang, Qibing Ren
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Ordinary, Reasonable Chatbots: Do AI Models Track Human Legal Judgments?

The paper investigates whether large language model (LLM) chatbots can emulate human legal judgments of reasonableness. By comparing responses from 26 LLMs to those of human participants across 25 legal scenarios, the study finds that chatbots generally track human answers but tend to produce more homogeneous, government‑ and corporation‑friendly responses and align more closely with white, male, older, and more educated respondents. The authors note that these patterns warrant further systematic research.

By Nirav Patel, Emily Wenger, Christopher Buccafusco