Human vs. AI: A Novel Benchmark and a Comparative Study on the Detection of Generated Images and the Impact of Prompts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
With the advent of publicly available AI-based text-to-image systems, the process of creating photorealistic but fully synthetic images has been largely democratized. This can pose a threat to the public through a simplified spread of disinformation. Machine detectors and human media expertise can help to differentiate between AI-generated (fake) and real images and counteract this danger. Although AI generation models are highly prompt-dependent, the impact of the prompt on the fake detection performance has rarely been investigated yet. This work therefore examines the influence of the prompt's level of detail on the detectability of fake images, both with an AI detector and in a user study. For this purpose, we create a novel dataset, COCOXGEN, which consists of real photos from the COCO dataset as well as images generated with SDXL and Fooocus using prompts of two standardized lengths. Our user study with 200 participants shows that images generated with longer, more detailed prompts are detected significantly more easily than those generated with short prompts. Similarly, an AI-based detection model achieves better performance on images generated with longer prompts. However, humans and AI models seem to pay attention to different details, as we show in a heat map analysis.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2024.
Builds on
17 of 24 references.
References · 17
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,863
- 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
- 2023SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 4,356
- 2021Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generationcited by 4,288
- 2023GenImage: A Million-Scale Benchmark for Detecting AI-Generated Imagecited by 321
- 2022On the detection of synthetic images generated by diffusion modelscited by 283
- 2021Design Guidelines for Prompt Engineering Text-to-Image Generative Modelscited by 218
- 2022DE-FAKE: Detection and Attribution of Fake Images Generated by Text-to-Image Generation Modelscited by 168
- 2021Are GAN generated images easy to detect? A critical analysis of the state-of-the-artcited by 139
- 2023CIFAKE: Image Classification and Explainable Identification of AI-Generated Synthetic Imagescited by 84
- 2020Evading Deepfake-Image Detectors with White- and Black-Box Attackscited by 80
5 more
- 2023Seeing is not always believing: Benchmarking Human and Model Perception of AI-Generated Imagescited by 66
- 2023Online Detection of AI-Generated Imagescited by 55
- 2024As Good As A Coin Toss: Human detection of AI-generated images, videos, audio, and audiovisual stimulicited by 22
- 2022Misleading Deep-Fake Detection with GAN Fingerprintscited by 11
- 2024Global-Local Image Perceptual Score (GLIPS): Evaluating Photorealistic Quality of AI-Generated Imagescited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.