LAION-Mobile: Evaluating Deepfake Detectors On One Million Smartphone Photos
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Most Deepfake detectors report near-perfect AUC scores on their reference benchmarks. However, a recent ICML position paper argues that these evaluations collectively neglect the impact of modern smartphone photography: the widely used on-device neural image-signal processing pipelines (like multi-sensor fusion or noise and motion-blur suppression) increasingly shift the imaging paradigm from simple lens projections towards computational photography. Hence, devices actually generate, rather than record photos. This increases the risk that deepfake detectors may flag ordinary phone photos as fake. Due to the lack of large-scale datasets containing images from modern smartphones, this hypothesis has so far only been tested in small proof-of-concept studies. The aim of this paper is to close this gap. We introduce LAION-Mobile, an open dataset containing about 1 million smartphone images with EXIF metadata distilled from re-LAION-5B. Evaluating twelve state-of-the-art deepfake detectors with their original paper checkpoints on a 9,115-image evaluation sample of this pool (DIRE on 738), we report three key findings: (i) On modern AI content no detector exceeds AUC 0.624, and five of twelve fall below chance. (ii) Real-photo false-alarm rates are an artefact of threshold calibration: thresholds fitted on legacy GAN data make several detectors look deployable (less than 11 percent FPR), yet the same detectors flag 17-91 percent of real photos once the identical criterion is refit on modern content. (iii) Consequently, no detector both beats chance on modern AI content and keeps a deployable real-photo false-alarm rate. Mirroring the device mix of web collections, the corpus probes the first neural-ISP generation (2018-2020); current flagships are essentially absent, leaving the modern-ISP regime as the open gap.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2026.
Builds on
17 of 26 references.
References · 17
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2022LAION-5B: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text modelscited by 4,152
- 2017Progressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variationcited by 2,988
- 2019CNN-generated images are surprisingly easy to spot... for nowcited by 847
- 2023Towards Universal Fake Image Detectors that Generalize Across Generative Modelscited by 490
- 2023DIRE for Diffusion-Generated Image Detectioncited by 390
- 2020Watch your Up-Convolution: CNN Based Generative Deep Neural Networks are Failing to Reproduce Spectral Distributionscited by 280
- 2024A Sanity Check for AI-generated Image Detectioncited by 189
- 2023Raising the Bar of AI-generated Image Detection with CLIPcited by 164
- 2024AEROBLADE: Training-Free Detection of Latent Diffusion Images Using Autoencoder Reconstruction Errorcited by 125
- 2024Orthogonal Subspace Decomposition for Generalizable AI-Generated Image Detectioncited by 105
5 more
- 2024Real-Time Deepfake Detection in the Real-Worldcited by 51
- 2024RIGID: A Training-free and Model-Agnostic Framework for Robust AI-Generated Image Detectioncited by 36
- 2026NTIRE 2026 Challenge on Robust AI-Generated Image Detection in the Wildcited by 18
- 2025Towards Generalizable AI-Generated Image Detection via Image-Adaptive Prompt Learningcited by 9
- 2026Addressing Image Authenticity When Cameras Use Generative AIcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.