AI-Powered Facial Mask Removal Is Not Suitable For Identification

AI-generated image detection is increasingly open-world: new image generators produce highly realistic images that make visual artifacts harder to identify. Existing detectors usually rely on a fixed set of forensic cues, so a detector that works well for one generator family may fail on another. We introduce FACT (Forensic Agent with Compiled Tool-use Trajectories), which learns an image-conditioned tool-use policy for forensic analysis. Instead of applying a fixed detector, FACT decides which forensic tools to call, interprets the returned evidence, and stops when sufficient evidence has been collected. FACT follows an Evolve--Distill--Refine pipeline: it evolves an execution-verified forensic skill, compiles the skill into action--observation tool-use trajectories, distills them into a compact agent, and refines the policy with cost-aware GRPO. Across two internal and four public benchmarks, FACT achieves the best performance among all compared methods, including on recent unseen generators, deepfakes, and manipulated images.

Suspect face generation remains a technical challenge in crime investigations. Traditional sketch-drawing workflows suffer from low efficiency and quality, while diffusion-based approaches still face intrinsic limitations on conditional ambiguity for text-to-image models and sampling variance for one-shot generation. We proposed IdentiFace, a novel diffusion-based framework for identifiable suspect face generation, which addressed these issues through (1) multi-modal input design to strengthen conditional control, and (2) an iterative generation pipeline enabling identifiable feature adjustment. We additionally contributed a facial identity loss and two task-specific datasets. Comprehensive experiments on synthetic datasets and in real-world scenarios indicate that IdentiFace achieves superior performance over existing methods, especially in terms of identity retrieval, and shows strong potential for practical applications.

AI-generated faces can be difficult to distinguish from real ones, leaving viewers to rely on source labels when judging an image. Yet prior work has made it difficult to separate the effects of what an image actually is from what viewers are told it is. We validated faces as AI-generated or human in an online study (N=169), then crossed actual source (AI, human) with label (none, Made with AI, Made by a human) in a lab study $N=30), recording event-related potentials (ERPs) and gaze. ERP responses were equivalent for AI-generated and real faces, but varied with the label: labels drew early attention (N2), while labels that conflicted with the face's actual source prompted re-evaluation of the face (P3). Affective processing and initial gaze orienting were unchanged, but labels altered visual exploration. We provide a validated stimulus set and evidence that attributed origin shapes face processing, with implications for disclosure design.