RAID: A Dataset for Testing the Adversarial Robustness of AI-Generated Image Detectors
Authors: Hicham Eddoubi, Jonas Ricker, Federico Cocchi, Angelo Sotgiu, Maura Pintor, Marcella Cornia, Lorenzo Baraldi, Asja Fischer, Battista Biggio
Organizations: University of Cagliari, Italy · Sapienza University of Rome, Italy · Ruhr University Bochum, Germany · University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy · University of Pisa, Italy · CINI, Italy
AI-generated images (AIGIs) have reached a level of quality at which humans are unable to reliably distinguish them from real images. To counter the inherent risks of fraud and disinformation, their detection is a pressing challenge and an active research topic. While many of the presented methods claim high detection accuracy, they are often evaluated without considering their adversarial robustness. In real-world scenarios, malicious actors can modify AIGIs, e.g., through imperceptible perturbations, to evade detection systems. In this work, we provide a dataset to assess the robustness of AI-generated image detectors. We present RAID (Robust evaluation of AI-generated image Detectors), a benchmark dataset of 216k diverse and transferable adversarial images. The proposed dataset is created starting from images generated by four different text-to-image models (to promote diversity) and optimizing attacks against an ensemble of seven state-of-the-art detectors (to promote transferability). Extensive experiments show that our methodology generates adversarial images that transfer to unseen detectors, degrading the performance of every detector outside the attack ensemble that we evaluate, and provides a practical, worst-case robustness screen: failure on RAID is a strong indicator that a detector is not adversarially robust. We release our dataset at https://huggingface.co/datasets/aimagelab/RAID and evaluation code at https://github.com/pralab/RAID.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Adversarial attack on the AIGI detector provided by sightengine . Successful evasion is shown by adding adversarial noise computed on the detector by Corvi et al. [23] . We perform an extended evaluation on commercial detectors in D .
Experiment
Setting
Surrogate ensemble
In release?
PGD Hyperparameters Ablation ( Fig. 3 )
black-box
N∖{target}
no
Single-detector attack (Tabs. 4 , 5 , 11 , diag.)
white-box
target only
no
Cross-model transfer (Tabs. 4 , 5 , 11 , off-diag.)
Table 1: Threat model for each experiment: access setting, surrogate ensemble, and whether the images belong to the public RAID release. N is the seven-detector pool of Sect. 3.2 .
Figure 2: A diagram of the three experimental pipelines used in the paper for generating the RAID dataset. Left: We keep the top three-performing detectors intact while retraining the rest. Middle: We generate adversarial images optimizing on an ensemble of detectors. Right: We evaluate the baseline detectors on the RAID images.
F1
Acc
AUROC
[ 23 ]
(Co23)
0.75
0.81
0.91
[ 75 ]
(O23)
0.33
0.29
0.68
[ 95 ]
(W20)
0.21
0.02
0.46
[ 12 ]
(Ca24)
0.20
0.07
0.45
[ 95 ] †
(W20 † )
0.99
0.99
0.99
[ 23 ] †
(Co23 † )
0.98
0.99
0.99
Table 2: Evaluation of each model on a subset of the clean D 3 test set. † refers to detectors trained on D 3 . F1-score computed with the AI-generated class as positive.
Figure 3: ASR of the leave-one-out ensemble PGD attack for every number of iterations K (ticks) and step size α (groups), for each budget ϵ (colors). Dashed lines: Gaussian noise clipped to the same ℓ∞ budget. Mean over 3 random starts and the 7 held-out detectors, on 1,000 images; shaded areas: ±1 standard deviation.
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
ϵ=2558
ϵ=25516
ϵ=25532
ϵ=2558
ϵ=25516
ϵ=25532
0.09 ± 0.07
0.24 ± 0.13
0.40 ± 0.16
0.85 ± 0.07
0.63 ± 0.12
0.47 ± 0.13
Table 3: LPIPS and SSIM between the adversarial images of the released RAID dataset and their clean counterparts, per perturbation budget ϵ . Mean ± standard deviation over all images.
Ca24 †
Ch24C
Ch24CN
Co23 †
K24
O23 †
W20 †
Ca24 †
0.00/100.0
0.70/0.6
0.85/5.9
0.90/7.6
0.68/18.5
0.87/4.3
0.94/4.2
Ch24C
0.58/27.8
0.00/100.0
0.49/46.3
0.93/3.6
0.04/95.4
0.08/91.6
0.94/4.3
Ch24CN
0.52/34.5
0.59/17.0
0.03/96.9
0.89/7.7
0.61/26.9
0.88/3.4
0.95/3.6
Co23 †
0.32/59.4
0.65/7.5
0.08/90.8
0.00/100.0
0.49/41.4
0.82/9.9
0.01/99.3
K24
0.54/31.8
0.08/89.3
0.43/52.4
0.93/4.4
0.05/93.7
0.20/77.6
0.94/3.8
O23 †
0.57/28.6
0.03/95.3
0.71/21.6
0.93/4.2
0.06/92.4
0.00/100.0
0.93/5.5
Table 4: White-box and black-box adversarial robustness evaluation (AUROC/ASR) on PGD with ϵ = 16/255 perturbation. Adversarial attacks are ran against the model in each row and evaluated on models in each column. † refers to detectors trained on the D 3 training set. Final row N− model refers to ensemble attacks targeting all models, excluding the evaluated against model. Bold values corresponding to white-box evaluation in single detector attacks.
Ca24 †
Ch24C
Ch24CN
Co23 †
K24
O23 †
W20 †
Ca24 †
0.00/100.0
0.74/ − 4.5
0.76/15.4
0.88/9.3
0.72/13.4
0.87/4.0
0.92/6.0
Ch24C
0.54/32.3
0.00/100.0
0.35/61.1
0.92/4.8
0.01/98.7
0.03/97.1
0.92/6.3
Ch24CN
0.48/39.7
0.55/21.9
0.01/99.2
0.87/9.7
0.57/31.8
0.86/4.9
0.94/4.3
Co23 †
0.26/67.2
0.60/15.5
0.01/98.4
0.00/100.0
0.44/47.6
0.70/23.4
0.00/100.0
K24
0.51/35.5
0.08/88.2
0.38/57.8
0.92/5.2
0.07/91.6
0.22/75.4
0.93/5.2
O23 †
0.54/32.0
0.01/98.7
0.51/43.5
0.91/5.9
0.03/96.4
0.00/100.0
0.90/8.5
Table 5: White-box and black-box adversarial robustness evaluation (AUROC/ASR) on PGD with ϵ = 32/255 perturbation. Adversarial attacks are ran against the model in each row and evaluated on models in each column. † refers to detectors trained on the D 3 training set. Final row N− model refers to ensemble attacks targeting all models, excluding the evaluated against model. Bold values corresponding to white-box evaluation in single detector attacks.
Metric
Perturbation
Ca24 †
Ch24C
Ch24CN
Co23 †
K24
O23 †
W20 †
AUROC
Clean
0.77
0.74
0.97
0.99
0.89
0.96
0.99
8/255
0.46
0.06
0.43
0.32
0.09
0.24
0.46
16/255
0.46
0.02
0.23
0.20
0.04
0.15
0.29
32/255
0.40
0.01
0.19
0.08
0.02
0.12
0.06
ASR (%)
8/255
39.5
91.9
55.5
67.4
89.5
75.4
53.5
16/255
39.8
97.1
75.8
79.9
95.5
84.6
70.8
Table 6: Evaluation of our attack methodology on AIGIs from additional generators. For each detector, we report AUROC and ASR on images from 11 generative models, under the N− model ensemble attack (all models excluding the evaluated one).
DINOv2
DINOv2-Reg
ViT-T
CoDE
Dataset
Perturbation
AUROC
ASR
AUROC
ASR
AUROC
ASR
AUROC
ASR
D 3
Clean
0.85
–
0.85
–
0.82
–
0.89
–
RAID
8/255
0.76
10.1
0.78
8.9
0.74
9.0
0.72
19.2
RAID
16/255
0.73
14.7
0.75
12.6
0.70
14.2
0.65
27.7
RAID
32/255
0.67
21.8
0.70
17.8
0.66
19.7
0.59
34.2
RAID Img
8/255
0.76
10.2
0.78
9.0
0.74
9.2
0.72
19.2
Table 7: Adversarial robustness evaluation of the four trained baseline classifiers. All detectors are trained on the D 3 training set. RAID refers to the dataset of the adversarial images saved as raw tensors, while RAID Img refers to the released dataset of adversarial images saved as PNG images. ASR (%) is the relative AUROC drop with respect to the clean D 3 test set.
AIDE
Effort
DDD
OmniAID
DDA
Dataset
Perturbation
AUROC
ASR
AUROC
ASR
AUROC
ASR
AUROC
ASR
AUROC
ASR
D 3
Clean
0.78
–
0.70
–
0.89
–
0.78
–
0.93
–
RAID
8/255
0.66
15.5
0.55
20.5
0.71
19.5
0.29
63.1
0.52
44.2
RAID
16/255
0.60
22.1
0.56
20.0
0.67
24.9
0.15
81.1
0.34
62.9
RAID
32/255
0.50
35.1
0.48
30.7
0.57
35.1
0.09
87.9
0.16
82.5
RAID Img
8/255
0.66
15.6
0.56
20.0
0.71
19.5
0.29
63.4
0.52
44.2
Table 8: Adversarial robustness evaluation of five independently trained detectors, not part of the attack ensemble. AIDE, Effort, DDD [ 106 ] , and OmniAID use their released checkpoints trained on GenImage (SD1.4); DDA uses its released checkpoint trained on DDA-aligned MSCOCO. RAID refers to the adversarial images saved as raw tensors, while RAID Img refers to the released dataset of adversarial images saved as PNGs. ASR (%) is the relative AUROC drop with respect to the clean D 3 test set.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
ϵ
Attack
Ca24 †
Ch24C
Ch24CN
Co23 †
K24
O23 †
W20 †
Mean
PGD (Ours)
48.3
93.6
61.0
73.4
89.1
75.3
53.8
70.6
APGD
47.6
94.6
62.5
74.1
89.6
75.8
60.0
72.0
8/255
CWA
51.7
96.5
82.4
85.9
98.8
90.6
93.7
85.7
PGD (Ours)
54.7
97.6
78.2
87.0
94.3
86.5
73.5
81.7
APGD
53.7
97.8
81.5
89.1
95.6
87.0
77.7
83.2
16/255
CWA
59.9
98.1
92.5
94.1
99.6
87.5
95.0
89.6
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison with other ensemble attacks in the leave-one-out setting: ASR (%) on each held-out detector. Attacks are computed on 1,000 images per class.
ϵ
Post-processing
Ca24 †
Ch24C
Ch24CN
Co23 †
K24
O23 †
W20 †
8/255
No transform
48.3
93.6
61.0
73.4
89.1
75.3
53.8
Resize 64×64
6.2
9.3
24.5
56.2
38.0
11.4
26.5
Random crop 64×64
9.6
23.9
26.5
40.7
44.2
27.7
31.4
Random flip
46.9
87.2
61.2
72.9
82.3
66.8
53.4
JPEG ( q=75 )
50.6
29.1
54.6
55.2
49.3
21.4
47.5
16/255
No transform
54.7
97.6
78.2
87.0
94.3
86.5
73.5
Appendix
Table 10: Leave-one-out ensemble PGD attack with a post-processing operation applied to the adversarial images before classification: ASR (%) on each held-out detector, on 1,000 images per class. ASR is computed with respect to the clean AUROC without post-processing. Resize and random crop are followed by upsampling back to 256×256 ; random flip is horizontal with probability 0.5.
Ca24 †
Ch24C
Ch24CN
Co23 †
K24
O23 †
W20 †
Ca24 †
0.00/100.0
0.68/3.5
0.89/1.7
0.92/4.9
0.65/22.0
0.88/2.8
0.96/2.4
Ch24C
0.62/22.5
0.00/100.0
0.66/27.5
0.94/2.9
0.04/95.2
0.09/90.5
0.96/2.4
Ch24CN
0.57/28.0
0.60/15.0
0.01/99.2
0.91/6.3
0.71/14.2
0.88/2.9
0.95/2.7
Co23 †
0.36/55.1
0.72/ − 2.2
0.12/86.7
0.00/100.0
0.56/33.2
0.86/4.9
0.01/99.1
K24
0.58/27.8
0.10/85.2
0.61/32.9
0.93/4.4
0.03/96.1
0.24/73.3
0.95/3.3
O23 †
0.60/24.3
0.03/96.2
0.85/6.3
0.94/3.2
0.05/93.7
0.00/100.0
0.95/3.1
Appendix
Table 11: White-box and black-box adversarial robustness evaluation (AUROC/ASR) on PGD with ϵ = 8/255 perturbation. Adversarial attacks are ran against the model in each row and evaluated on models in each column. † refers to detectors trained on the D 3 training set. Final row N− model refers to ensemble attacks targeting all models, excluding the evaluated against model. Bold values corresponding to white-box evaluation in single detector attacks.
Metric
Ca24 †
Ch24C
Ch24CN
Co23 †
K24
O23 †
W20 †
AUROC
0.35 ± 0.00
0.02 ± 0.00
0.24 ± 0.00
0.16 ± 0.00
0.06 ± 0.01
0.16 ± 0.01
0.33 ± 0.01
ASR
56.1 ± 0.6
96.8 ± 0.1
72.9 ± 0.4
83.8 ± 0.2
92.7 ± 1.0
82.5 ± 1.4
66.2 ± 0.5
Appendix
Table 12: Leave-one-out ensemble PGD attack on each held-out detector at ϵ=16/255 ( K=10 , α=0.03 ): mean ± standard deviation over three seeded random starts, on 1,000 test images. ASR (%) is the relative AUROC drop with respect to the clean images.
Detector
Score
Score (Real)
Adversarial Score
Acc
Acc (Real)
Adversarial Acc
Sightengine
0.65
0.99
0.01
0.66
1.00
0.00
HIVE
0.59
0.99
0.45
0.60
1.00
0.44
Appendix
Table 13: Performance on commercial AIGI detectors. We report mean detector scores on AIGIs, with adversarial variants evaluated on RAID examples. Metrics on real images are also included.
Figure 4: Detection scores returned by Sightengine detector on a subset of clean and adversarial images. Higher scores indicate higher confidence that the image is AI-generated.
Figure 5: Detection scores returned by HIVE Moderation detector on a subset of clean and adversarial images. Higher scores indicate higher confidence that the image is AI-generated.
AI-generated image detectors are often evaluated on benchmarks where real and synthetic images differ in content, quality, or generation artifacts, allowing models to rely on dataset-specific cues and fail on unfamiliar generators or processed images. Existing datasets provide limited support for evaluating these challenges jointly across diverse visual content. We introduce REALIS, a dataset of 1.43 million real and synthetic images generated by 42 modern text-to-image models, including the latest proprietary systems such as Nano Banana 2. REALIS combines prompts derived from real images, quality filtering, and stratified sampling to reduce class-specific shortcuts while preserving content diversity. We further introduce REALIS-Expert, a stress-test subset for high-quality synthetic images, where real and generated samples are selected with closely matched semantic and visual characteristics. We also propose a robustness protocol covering 35 transformations at five severity levels to analyze detector behavior under image processing. Based on REALIS, our benchmark evaluates pretrained detectors, fine-tuned models, and zero-shot vision-language models under generator and post-processing shifts. On the hardest processed split, the best pretrained conventional detector achieves 0.550 ROC-AUC, compared with 0.752 for the best REALIS-trained detector. REALIS provides a unified framework for measuring and improving the reliability of AI-image detectors under conditions that better reflect real-world use.
Aleksandr Gushchin, Khaled Abud, Georgii Bychkov +5
MSU Institute for Artificial Intelligence · Trusted AI Research Center RAS · Lomonosov Moscow State University
Recent image generators produce photo-realistic content that undermines the reliability of downstream recognition systems. As visual appearance cues become less pronounced, appearance-driven detectors that rely on forensic cues or high-level representations lose stability. This motivates a shift from appearance to behavior, focusing on how images respond to controlled perturbations rather than how they look. In this work, we identify a simple and universal behavioral signal. Natural images preserve stable semantic representations under small, structured perturbations, whereas generated images exhibit markedly larger feature drift. We refer to this phenomenon as robustness asymmetry and provide a theoretical analysis that establishes a lower bound connecting this asymmetry to memorization tendencies in generative models, explaining its prevalence across architectures. Building on this insight, we introduce Robustness Asymmetry Detection (RA-Det), a behavior-driven detection framework that converts robustness asymmetry into a reliable decision signal. Evaluated across 14 diverse generative models and against more than 10 strong detectors, RA-Det achieves superior performance, improving the average performance by 7.81 percent. The method is data- and model-agnostic, requires no generator fingerprints, and transfers across unseen generators. Together, these results indicate that robustness asymmetry is a stable, general cue for synthetic-image detection and that carefully designed probing can turn this cue into a practical, universal detector. The source code is publicly available at Github.
Detecting AI-generated images is only half the task: a deployed detector must also justify its verdict, yet existing detectors inherit three failure modes from their training data: real and fake images collected from different sources invite provenance shortcuts, supervised explanation corpora teach templated rationales, and a static forgery corpus leaves the decision boundary standing still while generators keep moving. We introduce \methodname{}, an adversarial reinforcement learning framework that pits two heterogeneous models against each other. A diffusion image editor learns to edit real photographs into fake counterparts of those same photographs that fool the current detector, while a reasoning MLLM learns to expose them with a verdict grounded in free-form reasoning. Both rewards are shortcut-proof by design: the attacker is credited only when its edit is faithfully executed, and the defender only when its verdict is correct. As the two models alternate, each round's attacker regenerates a harder training pool aimed at the current detector's blind spots, so the detector must generalize rather than memorize any fixed artifact distribution. Although the explanation is never rewarded, its quality rises round over round as a side effect of accuracy-only training. A detector trained within this loop improves monotonically across rounds on each of three external benchmarks.
Yicheng Bao, Xiahui Guo, Xuhong Wang +1
1East China Normal University · 2Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory