With the rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC), image manipulation has become increasingly accessible, posing significant challenges for image forgery detection and localization (IFDL). In this paper, we study how to fully leverage vision-language models (VLMs) to assist the IFDL task. In particular, we observe that priors from VLMs hardly benefit the detection and localization performance and even have negative effects due to their inherent biases toward semantic plausibility rather than authenticity. Additionally, the location masks explicitly encode the forgery concepts, which can serve as extra priors for VLMs to ease their training optimization, thus enhancing the interpretability of detection and localization results. Building on these findings, we propose a new IFDL pipeline named IFDL-VLM. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we conduct experiments on 9 popular benchmarks and assess the model performance under both in-domain and cross-dataset generalization settings. The experimental results show that we consistently achieve new state-of-the-art performance in detection, localization, and interpretability.Code is available at: https://github.com/sha0fengGuo/IFDL-VLM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison with the existing IFDL pipeline. (a) Existing IFDL algorithms enhance the interpretability with language explanations from VLMs. Meanwhile, the <SEG> token and the <CLS> token for localization and detection are derived from the responses of VLMs. (b) Our IFDL method decouples the optimization of language explanations and detection&localization. Moreover, the detection&localization results are used as extra inputs to assist the optimization of language explanation with VLMs.
Figure 2: VLMs exhibit a bias toward semantic plausibility rather than authenticity . As a result, they are often insensitive to semantically consistent or subtle forgeries, such as the replacement of a cat instance in (a) or the addition of a new person in (b). This inherent bias ultimately hinders IFDL performance.
Figure 3: Our IFDL-VLM framework. IFDL-VLM method decouples the optimization of detection&localization from the language explanation generation. (a) Detection&localization expert training with VIT and SAM. (b) Region-aware visual feature enhancement technique for language explanation generation.
Methods
Year
Real
Fully synthetic
Tampered
Overall
Acc
F1
Acc
F1
Acc
F1
Acc
F1
AntifakePrompt
2024
0.65
0.79
0.94
0.97
0.31
0.47
0.63
0.74
CnnSpott
2021
0.80
0.89
0.40
0.57
0.07
0.13
0.42
0.53
FreDect
2020
0.84
0.91
0.17
0.29
0.12
0.21
0.37
0.47
Fusing
2022
0.85
0.92
0.34
0.51
0.03
0.05
0.41
0.49
Gram-Net
2020
0.70
0.82
0.94
0.97
0.01
0.02
0.55
0.60
Table 1: Comparisons with previous methods regarding detection performance on SID-Set. Numbers are borrowed from SIDA [ 18 ] . The best results are in bold. The overall accuracy and F1 are calculated as the average of the values from the three classification categories.
Method
Year
AUC
F1
IoU
MVSS-Net
2023
0.49
0.32
0.24
HiFi-Net
2023
0.64
0.46
0.21
PSCC-Net
2022
0.82
0.71
0.36
LISA-7B-v1
2024
0.78
0.69
0.33
SIDA-7B
2024
0.87
0.74
0.44
IFDL-VLM (Ours)
-
0.99
0.87
0.65
Table 2: Comparison with previous methods regarding localization results on SID-Set.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on localization mask and language explanations.
Method
CASIA1+
IMD2020
Columbia
NIST
DSO
Korus
DeepFake
AIGC-Editing
Avg
IoU
F1
IoU
F1
IoU
F1
IoU
F1
IoU
F1
IoU
F1
IoU
F1
IoU
F1
IoU
F1
SPAN
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.14
0.14
0.20
0.16
0.21
0.14
0.24
0.06
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.10
0.15
ManTraNet
0.09
0.13
0.10
0.16
0.04
0.07
0.14
0.20
0.08
0.13
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.12
0.07
0.11
OSN
0.47
0.51
0.38
0.47
0.58
0.69
0.25
0.33
0.32
0.45
0.14
0.19
0.11
0.13
0.07
0.09
0.29
0.37
HiFi-Net
0.13
0.18
0.09
0.14
0.06
0.11
0.09
0.13
0.18
0.29
0.01
0.06
0.07
0.11
0.13
0.22
0.10
0.15
PSCC-Net
0.36
0.46
0.22
0.32
0.64
0.74
0.18
0.26
0.22
0.33
0.15
0.22
0.12
0.18
0.10
0.15
0.24
0.33
Table 3: Comparative results of tamper localization capabilities between competing IFDL methods and our IFDL-VLM, tested on MMTD-Set (Photoshop, DeepFake, AIGC-Editing). All numerical results for baseline methods are borrowed from FakeShield [ 45 ] . Results marked with an asterisk (*) are reproduced using the official checkpoint released by the authors.
Section
SIDA-13B-description
IFDL-VLM (Ours)
Mask
1.22 ± 1.10
2.28 ± 1.68
Type
2.96 ± 2.44
3.70 ± 2.21
Areas
1.67 ± 1.40
2.45 ± 1.69
Tampered Content
1.14 ± 1.44
1.98 ± 1.80
Visual Inconsistencies
2.40 ± 1.04
2.91 ± 1.22
Summary
2.48 ± 2.15
3.31 ± 2.11
Table 4: Quantitative comparison between SIDA-13B-description and our model on six evaluation dimensions with GPT-5. The overall score is computed as the average of the Mask score and the Text score.
Figure 5: Overall preference distribution in human evaluation.
Section
SIDA-13B-description
Ours
Type
0.83
0.87
Areas
0.61
0.67
Tampered Content
0.44
0.49
Visual Inconsistencies
0.67
0.70
Summary
0.80
0.84
CSS(weighted)
0.57
0.62
Table 5: Section-wise CSS scores.
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
α Value
Type
Areas
Tampered Content
Visual Inconsistencies
Summary
0.0
0.79
0.64
0.54
0.59
0.77
0.3
0.83
0.66
0.58
0.65
0.80
0.5
0.87
0.67
0.60
0.70
0.84
0.7
0.80
0.68
0.55
0.62
0.79
1.0
0.75
0.65
0.50
0.60
0.77
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study on α for region-aware visual feature enhancement technique with CSS scores.
Method
AUC
F1
IoU
CSS
ROUGE-L
SIDA-7B
0.87
0.74
0.44
0.66
0.38
SIDA-13B
0.94
0.72
0.54
0.80
0.41
SIDA-7B-Unfrozen-CLIP
0.94
0.63
0.40
0.65
0.39
SIDA-13B-Unfrozen-CLIP
0.95
0.72
0.50
0.73
0.40
IFDL-VLM (Ours)
0.99
0.87
0.65
0.84
0.43
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison with SIDA (unfrozen CLIP).
Metric
FakeShield
IFDL-VLM
SIDA
Params (B)
22.0
14.3
14.0
FLOPs (T)
6.3
6.2
6.1
Peak Mem. (GB)
27.1
27.5
29.5
Appendix
Table 8: Efficiency comparison.
Figure 6: Attention details in the IFDL-VLM framework.
Method
BLEU-1
ROUGE-L
METEOR
CIDEr
SIDA-13B
0.548
0.406
0.272
0.016
IFDL-VLM (Ours)
0.580
0.434
0.290
0.030
Appendix
Table 9: Quantitative comparison on standard text similarity metrics.
Figure 7: The full multimodal prompt used to instruct GPT-5 for pairwise evaluation of IFDL models. The prompt specifies scoring criteria, output format, and input modalities (image, masks, texts).
Setting
BLEU-1
ROUGE-L
METEOR
CIDEr
CSS
PM (Clean)
0.579
0.434
0.290
0.030
0.842
PM (Boundary-Pert.)
0.574
0.431
0.292
0.020
0.842
GT
0.565
0.428
0.291
0.026
0.853
Appendix
Table 10: Quantitative evaluation of explanation robustness under boundary-perturbed masks. “Boundary-Pert.” denotes applying morphological operations to the predicted masks.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 13: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 14: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 15: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 16: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 17: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 18: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 19: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 20: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 21: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Figure 22: Qualitative comparison example. We highlight the accurate descriptions from GT in red , while the areas where the model fails to identify the modified regions correctly are marked in blue .
Detection and localization of AI-tampered images are critical for trustworthy AI, yet modern generative models have made such manipulations increasingly difficult to identify. While traditional binary classifiers can detect image tampering, they lack interpretability and generalization. Vision-Language Models (VLMs) offer a promising alternative due to their strong visual understanding and reasoning capabilities; however, existing approaches typically rely on supervised finetuning with curated explanations rather than exploiting their inherent reasoning capabilities. In this work, we investigate whether VLMs can be trained to reason about AI-generated image edits using reinforcement learning (RL) rather than explicit reasoning supervision. Motivated by the success in Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), an RL technique that incentivizes the model to reason by generating thinking traces prior to giving the final answer, we propose a GRPO-based training framework that utilizes simple accuracy and format rewards. Given an input image, the model produces a structured reasoning trace and predicts whether the image has been tampered with. A lightweight segmentation model is then guided by the reasoning output to generate pixel-level localization masks. Experiments across multiple image manipulation datasets demonstrate that our approach achieves competitive detection and localization performance compared to state-of-the-art image forgery detectors, despite requiring substantially weaker supervision. We introduce effective intersection over union (eff-IoU), a unified metric to jointly evaluate detection and localization. These results suggest that reinforcement learning provides an effective and scalable mechanism for teaching VLMs to reason about AI-generated content.
In recent years, the rapid evolution of generative AI has fundamentally reshaped the paradigm of image forgery, breaking the traditional boundaries between document editing, natural image manipulation, DeepFake generation, and full-image AIGC synthesis. Despite this shift toward unified forgery generation, existing research in Fake Image Detection and Localization (FIDL) remains fragmented. This creates a mismatch between increasingly unified forgery generation mechanisms and the domain-specific detection paradigm. Bridging this mismatch poses two key challenges for FIDL: understanding cross-domain artifacts transfer and interference, and building a high-capacity unified foundation model for joint detection and localization. To address these challenges, we propose DeFakerOne, a data-centric, unified FIDL foundation model integrating InternVL2 and SAM2. DeFakerOne enables simultaneous image-level detection and pixel-level forgery localization across diverse scenarios. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DeFakerOne achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming baselines on 39 forgery detection benchmarks and 9 localization benchmarks. Furthermore, the model exhibits superior robustness against real-world perturbations and state-of-the-art generators such as GPT-Image-2. Finally, we provide a systematic analysis of data scaling laws, cross-domain artifacts transfer-interference patterns, the necessity of fine-grained supervision, and the original resolution artifacts preservation, highlighting the design principles for scalable, robust, and unified FIDL.
Vision-Language Large Models (VLLMs) are promising for AI-generated image (AIGI) detection because they can produce both a prediction and a natural-language output. However, most existing VLLM-based detectors primarily fine-tune the language side while giving limited attention to low-level visual forensic cues. They also often depend on manually crafted prompts or human-annotated rationales, which limits scalability.We present UC-VLM, a unified multi-stage framework for AIGI detection that relies solely on binary supervision. UC-VLM first identifies effective instruction variants automatically. It then reuses the same binary label within a multi-stage training framework: (i) a visual discrimination objective that strengthens sensitivity to non-semantic forensic cues, and (ii) a label-conditioned generation objective that uses the binary label to supervise textual outputs. This design turns weak binary supervision into a shared supervision signal for both the visual pathway and the language output. Our key novelty is a unified multi-stage binary-supervised framework that consistently reuses the same authenticity labels for visual adaptation and label-conditioned text generation, while leveraging automatically optimized instructions to reduce prompt sensitivity without requiring human-written rationales or hand-crafted prompts.Experiments show that UC-VLM achieves 96.1% average accuracy on GenImage, exceeding the strongest prior result by 4.6%, and obtains 69.6% / 77.9% accuracy on Chameleon under ProGAN / SDV1.4 training, surpassing the best baseline by 11.2% / 15.3%, respectively.