Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Explainable AI-Generated Image Detection RewardBench
0
Zitationen
7
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
Conventional, classification-based AI-generated image detection methods cannot explain why an image is considered real or AI-generated in a way a human expert would, which reduces the trustworthiness and persuasiveness of these detection tools for real-world applications. Leveraging Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has recently become a trending solution to this issue. Further, to evaluate the quality of generated explanations, a common approach is to adopt an "MLLM as a judge" methodology to evaluate explanations generated by other MLLMs. However, how well those MLLMs perform when judging explanations for AI-generated image detection generated by themselves or other MLLMs has not been well studied. We therefore propose \textbf{XAIGID-RewardBench}, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of current MLLMs to judge the quality of explanations about whether an image is real or AI-generated. The benchmark consists of approximately 3,000 annotated triplets sourced from various image generation models and MLLMs as policy models (detectors) to assess the capabilities of current MLLMs as reward models (judges). Our results show that the current best reward model scored 88.76\% on this benchmark (while human inter-annotator agreement reaches 98.30\%), demonstrating that a visible gap remains between the reasoning abilities of today's MLLMs and human-level performance. In addition, we provide an analysis of common pitfalls that these models frequently encounter. Code and benchmark are available at https://github.com/RewardBench/XAIGID-RewardBench.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization
2017 · 20.682 Zit.
Generative Adversarial Nets
2023 · 19.895 Zit.
Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks
2014 · 15.318 Zit.
"Why Should I Trust You?"
2016 · 14.528 Zit.
On a Method to Measure Supervised Multiclass Model’s Interpretability: Application to Degradation Diagnosis (Short Paper)
2024 · 13.191 Zit.