How well are open sourced AI-generated image detection models out-of-the-box: A comprehensive benchmark study

As AI-generated images proliferate across digital platforms, reliable detection methods have become critical for combating misinformation and maintaining content authenticity. While numerous deepfake detection methods have been proposed, existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate fine-tuned models, leaving a critical gap in understanding out-of-the-box performance -- the most common deployment scenario for practitioners. We present the first comprehensive zero-shot evaluation of 16 state-of-the-art detection methods, comprising 23 pretrained detector variants (due to multiple released versions of certain detectors), across 12 diverse datasets, comprising 2.6~million image samples spanning 291 unique generators including modern diffusion models. Our systematic analysis reveals striking findings: (1)~no universal winner exists, with detector rankings exhibiting substantial instability (Spearman~$ρ$: 0.01 -- 0.87 across dataset pairs); (2)~a 37~percentage-point performance gap separates the best detector (75.0\% mean accuracy) from the worst (37.5\%); (3)~training data alignment critically impacts generalization, causing up to 20--60\% performance variance within architecturally identical detector families; (4)~modern commercial generators (Flux~Dev, Firefly~v4, Midjourney~v7) defeat most detectors, achieving only 18--30\% average accuracy; and (5)~we identify three systematic failure patterns affecting cross-dataset generalization. Statistical analysis confirms significant performance differences between detectors (Friedman test: $χ^2$=121.01, $p<10^{-16}$, Kendall~$W$=0.524). Our findings challenge the ``one-size-fits-all'' detector paradigm and provide actionable deployment guidelines, demonstrating that practitioners must carefully select detectors based on their specific threat landscape rather than relying on published benchmark performance.

Five Years of SciCap: What We Learned and Future Directions for Scientific Figure Captioning

Between 2021 and 2025, the SciCap project grew from a small seed-funded idea at The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) into one of the central efforts shaping the scientific figure-captioning landscape. Supported by a Penn State seed grant, Adobe, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, what began as our attempt to test whether domain-specific training, which was successful in text models like SciBERT, could also work for figure captions expanded into a multi-institution collaboration. Over these five years, we curated, released, and continually updated a large collection of figure-caption pairs from arXiv papers, conducted extensive automatic and human evaluations on both generated and author-written captions, navigated the rapid rise of large language models (LLMs), launched annual challenges, and built interactive systems that help scientists write better captions. In this piece, we look back at the first five years of SciCap and summarize the key technical and methodological lessons we learned. We then outline five major unsolved challenges and propose directions for the next phase of research in scientific figure captioning.

Can Multi-modal (reasoning) LLMs work as deepfake detectors?

Deepfake detection remains a critical challenge in the era of advanced generative models, particularly as synthetic media becomes more sophisticated. In this study, we explore the potential of state of the art multi-modal (reasoning) large language models (LLMs) for deepfake image detection such as (OpenAI O1/4o, Gemini thinking Flash 2, Deepseek Janus, Grok 3, llama 3.2, Qwen 2/2.5 VL, Mistral Pixtral, Claude 3.5/3.7 sonnet) . We benchmark 12 latest multi-modal LLMs against traditional deepfake detection methods across multiple datasets, including recently published real-world deepfake imagery. To enhance performance, we employ prompt tuning and conduct an in-depth analysis of the models' reasoning pathways to identify key contributing factors in their decision-making process. Our findings indicate that best multi-modal LLMs achieve competitive performance with promising generalization ability with zero shot, even surpass traditional deepfake detection pipelines in out-of-distribution datasets while the rest of the LLM families performs extremely disappointing with some worse than random guess. Furthermore, we found newer model version and reasoning capabilities does not contribute to performance in such niche tasks of deepfake detection while model size do help in some cases. This study highlights the potential of integrating multi-modal reasoning in future deepfake detection frameworks and provides insights into model interpretability for robustness in real-world scenarios.

Understanding How Paper Writers Use AI-Generated Captions in Figure Caption Writing

Figures and their captions play a key role in scientific publications. However, despite their importance, many captions in published papers are poorly crafted, largely due to a lack of attention by paper authors. While prior AI research has explored caption generation, it has mainly focused on reader-centered use cases, where users evaluate generated captions rather than actively integrating them into their writing. This paper addresses this gap by investigating how paper authors incorporate AI-generated captions into their writing process through a user study involving 18 participants. Each participant rewrote captions for two figures from their own recently published work, using captions generated by state-of-the-art AI models as a resource. By analyzing video recordings of the writing process through interaction analysis, we observed that participants often began by copying and refining AI-generated captions. Paper writers favored longer, detail-rich captions that integrated textual and visual elements but found current AI models less effective for complex figures. These findings highlight the nuanced and diverse nature of figure caption composition, revealing design opportunities for AI systems to better support the challenges of academic writing.