arXiv:2607. 13234v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deepfake detectors that achieve near-perfect scores on academic benchmarks collapse on real-world content: recent in-the-wild evaluations report AUC drops of 45-50% for state-of-the-art open-source models.
By Ken Jon Miyachi, Dylan Uys
arXiv:2607. 06254v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deepfake image detection is currently served by three fundamentally different paradigms: commercial APIs, zero-shot vision-language models (LLMs), and open-source detectors.
By Sharayu N. Deshmukh, Md Rashidunnabi, Nelton Tiago Gemo, Kurundkar G. D., Mahamune M. R., Nilesh K. Deshmukh
arXiv:2607. 27763v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We describe the DS@GT submissions to the ImageCLEFmedical Caption 2026 challenge, which continues a long-running benchmark on the ROCOv2 dataset with two tracks: Concept Detection (Task 1), assigning UMLS Concept Unique Identifiers (CUIs) to radiology images, and Caption Prediction (Task 2), generating natural-language captions.
By Bowen Wang, Youwen Zhang, Ritesh Mehta
We describe the DS@GT submissions to the ImageCLEFmedical Caption 2026 challenge, which continues a long-running benchmark on the ROCOv2 dataset with two tracks: Concept Detection (Task 1), assigning UMLS Concept Unique Identifiers (CUIs) to radiology images, and Caption Prediction (Task 2), generating natural-language captions. For Task 1, our primary submission was a three-way late-fusion ensemble of ConvNeXt-V2, BiomedCLIP ViT-B/16, and DenseNet-169 with a regularized ''Honest Threshold Tuning'' procedure designed to avoid validation overfitting on rare concepts; this submission ranked first on the official submission with a primary $F_1$ of $0.
arXiv:2609.01027v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection predicts whether a test image belongs to none of the predefined classes. To evaluate this task, benchmarks need ima...
By Ruslan Rozumnyi, Mat\v{e}j Such\'anek, Tom\'a\v{s} Voj\'i\v{r}, Kl\'ara Janou\v{s}kov\'a, Ji\v{r}\'i Matas
The study evaluates 16 AI‑generated image detection methods in a zero‑shot setting, testing 23 pretrained variants on 12 datasets with 2.6 million images from 291 generators. Results show no single detector consistently outperforms others, with accuracy ranging from 37.5 % to 75.0 %. The study highlights that training data alignment and generator type significantly affect performance, especially against modern commercial models, and identifies systematic failure patterns across datasets.
By Simiao Ren (Neo), Yuchen Zhou (Neo), Xingyu Shen (Neo), Kidus Zewde (Neo), Tommy Duong (Neo), George Huang (Neo), Hatsanai (Neo), Tiangratanakul (Dennis), Tsang (Dennis), Ng (Dennis), En Wei, Jiayu Xue