Could AI Trace and Explain the Origins of AI-Generated Images and Text?

AI-generated content is becoming increasingly prevalent in the real world, leading to serious ethical and societal concerns. For instance, adversaries might exploit large multimodal models (LMMs) to create images that violate ethical or legal standards, while paper reviewers may misuse large language models (LLMs) to generate reviews without genuine intellectual effort. While prior work has explored detecting AI-generated images and texts, and occasionally tracing their source models, there is a lack of a systematic and fine-grained comparative study. Important dimensions--such as AI-generated images vs. text, fully vs. partially AI-generated images, and general vs. malicious use cases--remain underexplored. Furthermore, whether AI systems like GPT-4o can explain why certain forged content is attributed to specific generative models is still an open question, with no existing benchmark addressing this. To fill this gap, we introduce AI-FAKER, a comprehensive multimodal dataset with over 280,000 samples spanning multiple LLMs and LMMs, covering both general and malicious use cases for AI-generated images and texts. Our experiments reveal two key findings: (i) AI authorship detection depends not only on the generated output but also on the model's original training intent; and (ii) GPT-4o provides highly consistent but less specific explanations when analyzing content produced by OpenAI's own models, such as DALL-E and GPT-4o itself.

Prompt-Reverse Inconsistency: LLM Self-Inconsistency Beyond Generative Randomness and Prompt Paraphrasing

While the inconsistency of LLMs is not a novel topic, prior research has predominantly addressed two types of generative inconsistencies: i) Randomness Inconsistency: running the same LLM multiple trials, yielding varying responses; ii) Paraphrase Inconsistency: paraphrased prompts result in different responses from the same LLM. Randomness Inconsistency arises from the inherent randomness due to stochastic sampling in generative models, while Paraphrase Inconsistency is a consequence of the language modeling objectives, where paraphrased prompts alter the distribution of vocabulary logits. This research discovers Prompt-Reverse Inconsistency (PRIN), a new form of LLM self-inconsistency: given a question and a couple of LLM-generated answer candidates, the LLM often has conflicting responses when prompted "Which are correct answers?" and "Which are incorrect answers?". PRIN poses a big concern as it undermines the credibility of LLM-as-a-judge, and suggests a challenge for LLMs to adhere to basic logical rules. We conduct a series of experiments to investigate PRIN, examining the extent of PRIN across different LLMs, methods to mitigate it, potential applications, and its relationship with Randomness Inconsistency and Paraphrase Inconsistency. As the first study to explore PRIN, our findings offer valuable insights into the inner workings of LLMs and contribute to advancing trustworthy AI.

Beyond End-to-End VLMs: Leveraging Intermediate Text Representations for Superior Flowchart Understanding

Flowcharts are typically presented as images, driving the trend of using vision-language models (VLMs) for end-to-end flowchart understanding. However, two key challenges arise: (i) Limited controllability--users have minimal influence over the downstream task, as they can only modify input images, while the training of VLMs is often out of reach for most researchers. (ii) Lack of explainability--it is difficult to trace VLM errors to specific causes, such as failures in visual encoding or reasoning. We propose TextFlow, addressing aforementioned issues with two stages: (i) Vision Textualizer--which generates textual representations from flowchart images; and (ii) Textual Reasoner--which performs question-answering based on the text representations. TextFlow offers three key advantages: (i) users can select the type of text representations (e.g., Graphviz, Mermaid, PlantUML), or further convert them into executable graph object to call tools, enhancing performance and controllability; (ii) it improves explainability by helping to attribute errors more clearly to visual or textual processing components; and (iii) it promotes the modularization of the solution, such as allowing advanced LLMs to be used in the Reasoner stage when VLMs underperform in end-to-end fashion. Experiments on the FlowVQA and FlowLearn benchmarks demonstrate TextFlow's state-of-the-art performance as well as its robustness. All code is publicly available.

AAAR-1.0: Assessing AI's Potential to Assist Research

Numerous studies have assessed the proficiency of AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), in facilitating everyday tasks such as email writing, question answering, and creative content generation. However, researchers face unique challenges and opportunities in leveraging LLMs for their own work, such as brainstorming research ideas, designing experiments, and writing or reviewing papers. In this study, we introduce AAAR-1.0, a benchmark dataset designed to evaluate LLM performance in three fundamental, expertise-intensive research tasks: (i) EquationInference, assessing the correctness of equations based on the contextual information in paper submissions; (ii) ExperimentDesign, designing experiments to validate research ideas and solutions; (iii) PaperWeakness, identifying weaknesses in paper submissions; and (iv) REVIEWCRITIQUE, identifying each segment in human reviews is deficient or not. AAAR-1.0 differs from prior benchmarks in two key ways: first, it is explicitly research-oriented, with tasks requiring deep domain expertise; second, it is researcher-oriented, mirroring the primary activities that researchers engage in on a daily basis. An evaluation of both open-source and proprietary LLMs reveals their potential as well as limitations in conducting sophisticated research tasks. We will keep iterating AAAR-1.0 to new versions.

Assessing the Creativity of LLMs in Proposing Novel Solutions to Mathematical Problems

The mathematical capabilities of AI systems are complex and multifaceted. Most existing research has predominantly focused on the correctness of AI-generated solutions to mathematical problems. In this work, we argue that beyond producing correct answers, AI systems should also be capable of, or assist humans in, developing novel solutions to mathematical challenges. This study explores the creative potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning, an aspect that has received limited attention in prior research. We introduce a novel framework and benchmark, CreativeMath, which encompasses problems ranging from middle school curricula to Olympic-level competitions, designed to assess LLMs' ability to propose innovative solutions after some known solutions have been provided. Our experiments demonstrate that, while LLMs perform well on standard mathematical tasks, their capacity for creative problem-solving varies considerably. Notably, the Gemini-1.5-Pro model outperformed other LLMs in generating novel solutions. This research opens a new frontier in evaluating AI creativity, shedding light on both the strengths and limitations of LLMs in fostering mathematical innovation, and setting the stage for future developments in AI-assisted mathematical discovery.

From Blind Solvers to Logical Thinkers: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Integrity on Faulty Mathematical Problems

Consider the math problem: "Lily received 3 cookies from her best friend yesterday and ate 5 for breakfast. Today, her friend gave her 3 more cookies. How many cookies does Lily have now?" Many large language models (LLMs) in previous research approach this problem by calculating the answer "1" using the equation "3 - 5 + 3." However, from a human perspective, we recognize the inherent flaw in this problem: Lily cannot eat 5 cookies if she initially only had 3. This discrepancy prompts a key question: Are current LLMs merely Blind Solver that apply mathematical operations without deeper reasoning, or can they function as Logical Thinker capable of identifying logical inconsistencies? To explore this question, we propose a benchmark dataset, FaultyMath, which includes faulty math problems of rich diversity: i) multiple mathematical categories, e.g., algebra, geometry, number theory, etc., ii) varying levels of difficulty, and iii) different origins of faultiness -- ranging from violations of common sense and ambiguous statements to mathematical contradictions and more. We evaluate a broad spectrum of LLMs, including open-source, closed-source, and math-specialized models, using FaultyMath across three dimensions: (i) How accurately can the models detect faulty math problems without being explicitly prompted to do so? (ii) When provided with hints -- either correct or misleading -- about the validity of the problems, to what extent do LLMs adapt to become reliable Logical Thinker? (iii) How trustworthy are the explanations generated by LLMs when they recognize a math problem as flawed? Through extensive experimentation and detailed analysis, our results demonstrate that existing LLMs largely function as Blind Solver and fall short of the reasoning capabilities required to perform as Logical Thinker.

Does your LLM truly unlearn? An embarrassingly simple approach to recover unlearned knowledge

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable proficiency in generating text, benefiting from extensive training on vast textual corpora. However, LLMs may also acquire unwanted behaviors from the diverse and sensitive nature of their training data, which can include copyrighted and private content. Machine unlearning has been introduced as a viable solution to remove the influence of such problematic content without the need for costly and time-consuming retraining. This process aims to erase specific knowledge from LLMs while preserving as much model utility as possible. Despite the effectiveness of current unlearning methods, little attention has been given to whether existing unlearning methods for LLMs truly achieve forgetting or merely hide the knowledge, which current unlearning benchmarks fail to detect. This paper reveals that applying quantization to models that have undergone unlearning can restore the "forgotten" information. To thoroughly evaluate this phenomenon, we conduct comprehensive experiments using various quantization techniques across multiple precision levels. We find that for unlearning methods with utility constraints, the unlearned model retains an average of 21\% of the intended forgotten knowledge in full precision, which significantly increases to 83\% after 4-bit quantization. Based on our empirical findings, we provide a theoretical explanation for the observed phenomenon and propose a quantization-robust unlearning strategy to mitigate this intricate issue...

Exploring Language Model Generalization in Low-Resource Extractive QA

In this paper, we investigate Extractive Question Answering (EQA) with Large Language Models (LLMs) under domain drift, i.e., can LLMs generalize well to closed-domains that require specific knowledge such as medicine and law in a zero-shot fashion without additional in-domain training? To this end, we devise a series of experiments to empirically explain the performance gap. Our findings suggest that: a) LLMs struggle with dataset demands of closed-domains such as retrieving long answer-spans; b) Certain LLMs, despite showing strong overall performance, display weaknesses in meeting basic requirements as discriminating between domain-specific senses of words which we link to pre-processing decisions; c) Scaling model parameters is not always effective for cross-domain generalization; and d) Closed-domain datasets are quantitatively much different than open-domain EQA datasets and current LLMs struggle to deal with them. Our findings point out important directions for improving existing LLMs.

LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

LLMs' Classification Performance is Overclaimed

In many classification tasks designed for AI or human to solve, gold labels are typically included within the label space by default, often posed as "which of the following is correct?" This standard setup has traditionally highlighted the strong performance of advanced AI, particularly top-performing Large Language Models (LLMs), in routine classification tasks. However, when the gold label is intentionally excluded from the label space, it becomes evident that LLMs still attempt to select from the available label candidates, even when none are correct. This raises a pivotal question: Do LLMs truly demonstrate their intelligence in understanding the essence of classification tasks? In this study, we evaluate both closed-source and open-source LLMs across representative classification tasks, arguing that the perceived performance of LLMs is overstated due to their inability to exhibit the expected comprehension of the task. This paper makes a threefold contribution: i) To our knowledge, this is the first work to identify the limitations of LLMs in classification tasks when gold labels are absent. We define this task as Classify-w/o-Gold and propose it as a new testbed for LLMs. ii) We introduce a benchmark, Know-No, comprising two existing classification tasks and one new task, to evaluate Classify-w/o-Gold. iii) This work defines and advocates for a new evaluation metric, OmniAccuracy, which assesses LLMs' performance in classification tasks both when gold labels are present and absent.