mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Do CNNs Internally Represent Real and Fake Images Differently? A Hidden-Layer Analysis

arXiv 2608.14729 ↗First posted 12 Aug 2026cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Fake/synthetic images are increasingly prevalent, but it remains unclear whether Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) process real and fake images in the same internal manner. This work examines the hypothesis that CNNs represent real and fake images differently, such that fake images induce different hidden-layer activation patterns even when semantic content is preserved. The hypothesis is evaluated in scene recognition settings using trained CNN models. Dense-layer activations are extracted, and neurosymbolic methods assign semantic labels to selected neurons. For each real test image, corresponding fake images are generated with similar semantic content using object-label-guided text-to-image and image-to-image generation based on Stable Diffusion variants. Paired real-fake activation patterns are then compared statistically. Additional experiments with another dataset, CNN architecture, generative model, and JPEG/blur degradation analysis assess robustness. Results suggest that fake images evoke different hidden-neuron activations, and these differences are not explained only by simple image degradation. Overall, the findings indicate that real and fake images differ in CNN hidden-layer activation behavior at least in some settings, which opens the door for follow-up work on making use of this different behavior to improve fake image detection.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Aug 2026.

Builds on

14 of 34 references.

References · 14

  1. 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,694
  2. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  5. 2016Semantic Understanding of Scenes through the ADE20K Datasetcited by 1,063
  6. 2020Media Forensics and DeepFakes: an overviewcited by 208
  7. 2023CIFAKE: Image Classification and Explainable Identification of AI-Generated Synthetic Imagescited by 84
  8. 2023Seeing is not always believing: Benchmarking Human and Model Perception of AI-Generated Imagescited by 65
  9. 2024FakeBench: Probing Explainable Fake Image Detection via Large Multimodal Modelscited by 36
  10. 2022Shap-CAM: Visual Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networks based on Shapley Valuecited by 23
  11. 2018Efficient Concept Induction for Description Logicscited by 17
  12. 2024On the Value of Labeled Data and Symbolic Methods for Hidden Neuron Activation Analysiscited by 6
2 more
  1. 2024Towards Quantitative Evaluation of Explainable AI Methods for Deepfake Detectioncited by 6
  2. 2026A Case Study on Concept Induction for Neuron-Level Interpretability in CNNcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2023Intriguing properties of synthetic images: from generative adversarial networks to diffusion models
  2. 2025VERITAS: Verification and Explanation of Realness in Images for Transparency in AI Systems
  3. 2024Unveiling the Truth: Exploring Human Gaze Patterns in Fake Images
  4. 2022DE-FAKE: Detection and Attribution of Fake Images Generated by Text-to-Image Generation Models
  5. 2024Detecting Origin Attribution for Text-to-Image Diffusion Models
  6. 2024Synthetic Photography Detection: A Visual Guidance for Identifying Synthetic Images Created by AI
  7. 2023Towards Universal Fake Image Detectors that Generalize Across Generative Models
  8. 2024Transfer Learning of Real Image Features with Soft Contrastive Loss for Fake Image Detection