Handcrafted Feature Fusion for Reliable Detection of AI-Generated Images
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid progress of generative models has enabled the creation of highly realistic synthetic images, raising concerns about authenticity and trust in digital media. Detecting such fake content reliably is an urgent challenge. While deep learning approaches dominate current literature, handcrafted features remain attractive for their interpretability, efficiency, and generalizability. In this paper, we conduct a systematic evaluation of handcrafted descriptors, including raw pixels, color histograms, Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT), Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG), Local Binary Patterns (LBP), Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM), and wavelet features, on the CIFAKE dataset of real versus synthetic images. Using 50,000 training and 10,000 test samples, we benchmark seven classifiers ranging from Logistic Regression to advanced gradient-boosted ensembles (LightGBM, XGBoost, CatBoost). Results demonstrate that LightGBM consistently outperforms alternatives, achieving PR-AUC 0.9879, ROC-AUC 0.9878, F1 0.9447, and a Brier score of 0.0414 with mixed features, representing strong gains in calibration and discrimination over simpler descriptors. Across three configurations (baseline, advanced, mixed), performance improves monotonically, confirming that combining diverse handcrafted features yields substantial benefit. These findings highlight the continued relevance of carefully engineered features and ensemble learning for detecting synthetic images, particularly in contexts where interpretability and computational efficiency are critical.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jan 2026.
Builds on
11 of 20 references.
References · 11
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
- 2019CNN-generated images are surprisingly easy to spot... for nowcited by 842
- 2021Multi-attentional Deepfake Detectioncited by 339
- 2018Exposing DeepFake Videos By Detecting Face Warping Artifactscited by 318
- 2020Watch your Up-Convolution: CNN Based Generative Deep Neural Networks are Failing to Reproduce Spectral Distributionscited by 278
- 2020The Creation and Detection of Deepfakes: A Surveycited by 246
- 2020DeepFakes and Beyond: A Survey of Face Manipulation and Fake Detectioncited by 231
- 2018DeepFakes: a New Threat to Face Recognition? Assessment and Detectioncited by 208
- 2020Media Forensics and DeepFakes: an overviewcited by 208
- 2020Two-branch Recurrent Network for Isolating Deepfakes in Videoscited by 161
- 2021Are GAN generated images easy to detect? A critical analysis of the state-of-the-artcited by 139
Built on by
Not cited yet.