The rapid advancement of video generation models has enabled the creation of highly realistic synthetic media, raising significant societal concerns regarding the spread of misinformation. However, current detection methods suffer from critical limitations. They rely on preprocessing operations like fixed-resolution resizing and cropping. These operations not only discard subtle, high-frequency forgery traces but also cause spatial distortion and significant information loss. Furthermore, existing methods are often trained and evaluated on outdated datasets that fail to capture the sophistication of modern generative models. To address these challenges, we introduce a comprehensive dataset and a novel detection framework. First, we curate a large-scale dataset of over 140K videos from 15 state-of-the-art open-source and commercial generators, along with Magic Videos benchmark designed specifically for evaluating ultra-realistic synthetic content. In addition, we propose a novel detection framework built on the Qwen2.5-VL Vision Transformer, which operates natively at variable spatial resolutions and temporal durations. This native-scale approach effectively preserves the high-frequency artifacts and spatiotemporal inconsistencies typically lost during conventional preprocessing. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves superior performance across multiple benchmarks, underscoring the critical importance of native-scale processing and establishing a robust new baseline for AI-generated video detection.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Resolution mismatch and generator quality strongly affect cross-generator video detection. Left: Detectors trained on 720p videos (top) and on lower-resolution videos (<720p; bottom) both exhibit a pronounced performance drop when evaluated at a spatial resolution different from that used during training. Right: We observe a strong positive correlation between generator quality (VBench score) and cross-validation performance (Pearson ρ=0.86 ), indicating that higher-quality generators tend to yield more transferable training data for detector learning. These findings motivate a unified framework that is robust to resolution shifts and generator-specific artifacts.
Figure 2: Overview of the data generation pipeline and the proposed detection framework. Left: We curate high-quality captions from real videos and refine them into prompts for state-of-the-art text-to-video generators, producing realistic synthetic videos for training and evaluation. Right: Our detector supports variable spatial resolutions and temporal lengths. It avoids fixed-size resizing/cropping and applies 3D patchification to preserve the input aspect ratio and fine-grained, high-frequency forensic cues that are often weakened by conventional downsampling. Built on the Qwen2.5-VL Vision Transformer, the framework models videos as sequences of spatiotemporal patches for robust AI-generated video detection.
Data
Source
Number
Resolution
Duration
Training Data (15 models)
Vbench
140K
240p-768p
1-10s
Movie Gen
MovieGenBench
2003
1920x1088
10.7s
Wan2.1
Open Source
450
1280x720
5.4s
Wan-1.3B
Open Source
584
832x480
5s
Hailuo
API (T2V-01)
450
1280x720
5.6s
Seaweed
API (Jimeng-S2.0)
450
1472x832
5s
Table 1: Dataset statistics for training/validation and the Magic Videos benchmark. See appendix for details of these datasets.
Model
Training Data
Movie Gen
Wan 2.1
Wan-1.3B
Hailuo
Seaweed
Seedance
StepVideo
mACC
RINE†
ldm
52.97
45.35
33.56
51.4
51.63
44.65
70.23
49.47
FatFormer†
ProGAN
50.02
50.00
50.17
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.23
50.07
B-Free†
SD 2.1
64.30
53.72
68.32
55.81
31.63
36.05
48.60
49.02
Effort†
SD 1.4
70.74
73.26
66.95
67.44
86.05
83.26
62.79
73.29
WaveRep†
Pyramid Flow
65.30
58.84
53.6
59.53
59.53
57.21
59.53
58.04
F3Net
15Model-140K (Ours)
92.51
71.86
69.86
66.98
74.88
73.26
66.98
70.64
Table 2: Accuracy (ACC) Benchmarking Performance on on Movie Gen (val) and Magic Videos (test), reported per generator and averaged (mACC) . † Results are produced with the official pretrained model. Best: bold ; second best: underlined .
Model
Training Data
Movie Gen
Wan 2.1
Wan-1.3B
Hailuo
Seaweed
Seedance
StepVideo
mAP
RINE†
ldm
71.11
40.41
32.69
47.46
46.54
38.98
69.93
46.00
FatFormer†
ProGAN
58.84
39.06
54.96
43.80
44.55
42.16
52.36
46.15
B-Free†
SD 2.1
70.38
59.80
73.81
62.62
36.08
38.93
52.37
53.94
Effort†
SD 1.4
80.60
76.61
73.75
70.67
95.48
91.65
63.41
78.60
WaveRep†
Pyramid Flow
92.97
83.50
85.31
95.64
99.12
78.64
94.04
89.38
F3Net
15Model-140K (Ours)
96.20
85.79
78.05
80.31
92.13
87.32
81.26
84.14
Table 3: Average Precision (AP) Benchmarking Performance on on Movie Gen (val) and Magic Videos (test), reported per generator and averaged (mACC) . † Results are produced with the official pretrained model. Best: bold ; second best: underlined .
Method
Video- Crafter
Zero- scope
Open- Sora
Sora
Pika
Stable Diff.
Stable Video
AVG
CNNDet ∗
87.4
88.2
78.0
63.8
77.3
73.5
78.9
78.2
DIRE ∗
55.9
61.8
53.8
60.5
65.8
62.7
69.9
62.1
MM-Det
93.5
94.0
88.8
86.2
95.9
95.7
89.9
92.0
NPR
86.6
85.6
96.0
81.0
94.6
71.1
97.0
87.4
TALL
95.4
91.8
97.2
94.9
97.5
83.6
98.2
92.6
Table 4: Benchmarking Results in terms of AUC Performance on DVF-Test Song et al. (2024) . Results with * are derived from Song et al. (2024) .
Table 7
Archs.
Variants
Magic
Genvideo
Avg.
spatial resolution
random crop to 224p
62.62
93.50
78.06
random resize to 224p
73.69
95.52
84.61
dynamic [224p, 448p]
81.19
96.01
88.60
dynamic [224p, 720p]
83.20
96.64
89.92
temporal resolution
T =2
71.15
94.70
82.93
T =4
75.58
94.40
84.99
Table 7: Ablation studies regarding spatial-temporal resolution and tuning mode. We report averaged ACC(%) on Magic Videos and Genvideo. For temporal and tuning experiments, the spatial resolution is set to dynamic[224p, 448p].
Figure 3: Robustness on MovieGen under compression and spatial perturbations (relative ACC). Perturbation methods include JPEG compression, H264 encoding, spatial resizing and cropping.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model / Video Source
Ver.
Availability
Videos
Resolution
FPS
Frame
Duration
Real Kinetics-400 ( Kay et al., 2017 )
17.05
real videos
70K
144p-720p
-
-
5-10s
RepVideo ( Si et al., 2025 )
25.01
open-source
4720
720x480
8
49
6.1s
Wan2.1 ( Wan Team, 2025 )
25.01
open-source
4725
1280x720
16
81
5.0s
CausVid (5s) ( Yin et al., 2025 )
25.01
open-source
4720
640x352
24
120
5.0s
Apple-STIV ( Lin et al., 2024 )
24.12
open-report
4715
512x512
60
60
1.0s
Sora ( Brooks et al., 2024 )
24.12
private
4720
854x480
30
150
5.0s
Appendix
Table 8: Statistics of real and synthetic videos in the proposed training set.
Model / Video
Split
Videos
Resolution
FPS
Frame
Duration
Movie Gen ( Polyak et al., 2024 )
validation (fake)
1003
1920x1088
24
256
10.7s
Panda-70M ( Chen et al., 2024d )
validation (real)
1000
720p
6-30
-
10-50s
Mixkit ( mixkit, 2024 )
test (real)
215
720p
15-60
-
10-17s
Pexels ( pexels, 2024 )
292
720p
24-60
-
6-39s
Wan2.1 ( Wan Team, 2025 )
test (fake)
215
1280x720
30
161
5.4s
Wan-1.3B ( Wan Team, 2025 )
292
832x480
16
81
5.0s
Appendix
Table 9: Statistics of real and synthetic videos in the proposed validation and Magic Videos Benchmark.
Figure 4: MDS visualization of generator similarity induced by cross-model detection performance. . Model similarity is based on pairwise detection accuracy.
Model
Wan21
Hun- yuan
Kling
Sora
Gen-3
Rep- Video
Jimeng
Luma
Mira
Pika
Open Sora
STIV
Caus Vid
VCraf ter-2
ADiff -V2
AVG
Wan21
99.7
97.4
93.1
97.1
98.4
88.7
96.8
97.5
33.8
91.3
44.7
88.3
97.7
92.1
94.2
87.38
Hunyuan
93.9
99.4
81.3
92.9
92.0
69.7
89.7
91.4
38.5
84.4
34.2
74.2
89.8
86.3
90.6
80.55
Kling
85.9
82.0
98.5
82.2
84.4
66.3
76.7
84.8
26.2
65.9
35.2
69.1
92.2
71.0
76.8
73.15
Sora
90.3
84.9
75.6
99.5
93.7
78.7
99.2
96.1
35.2
87.1
34.1
70.7
98.0
88.3
90.4
81.44
Gen-3
92.6
84.9
81.7
93.0
99.6
83.8
94.4
95.3
23.7
88.1
50.6
75.1
96.5
80.4
84.5
81.60
RepVideo
97.0
91.5
92.8
96.9
98.3
98.8
98.6
97.8
29.4
94.8
56.6
86.9
99.8
91.7
91.1
88.13
Appendix
Table 10: Cross-Validation Results . Each cell in the table represents the average recall (%) of four detection models (NPR ( Tan et al., 2024 ) , TALL ( Xu et al., 2023 ) , X-CLIP-B/32 ( Ni et al., 2022 ) , F3Net ( Qian et al., 2020 ) ). The model is trained on generated videos of each subset and 5k real videos from MSR-VTT dataset.
Model
Training
Metric
Sora
Morph
Gen2
HotShot
Lavie
Show-1
Moon
Crafter
Model
Wild
Avg.
Data
Studio
Valley
Scope
Scrape
UNITE
FaceForensics++, SAIL-VOS-3D
Recall
92.11
100.0
94.62
96.93
98.12
99.86
98.69
100.0
96.29
89.89
89.60
F1
-
AP
88.57
100.0
100.0
90.16
89.91
98.34
99.52
100.0
98.96
92.56
92.76
DeMamba-CLIP
GenVideo
Recall
95.71
100.0
98.70
69.14
92.43
93.29
100.0
100.0
83.57
82.94
91.58
F1
64.63
96.15
97.39
78.03
94.14
92.76
95.72
98.04
87.23
87.82
89.19
Appendix
Table 11: Benchmarking Evaluation in terms of Recall, F1 score (F1), average precision (AP), and balance accuracy (bACC) on Genvideo-Val. The results of RINE and DeMamba are reported in Corvi et al. (2025) .
Model
Resolution
#Params
FLOPS
Peak GPU Mem
Training Time / Epoch
CLIP-L
[224, 224]
303.2M
622.6G
21.5GB (bs=4) 129.3GB (bs=32)
9.5 A100 hours
X-CLIP-L
[224, 224]
429.2M
650.6G
21.5GB (bs=4) 129.3GB (bs=32)
10.5 A100 hours
Effort
[224, 224]
0.2M/504.6M
623.4G
17.3G (bs=4) 75.1GB(bs=32)
7.5 A100 hours
Qwen2.5-ViT
[224, 224]
668.7M
656G
16.0GB(bs=4)
2.3 A100 hours
Qwen2.5-ViT
dynamic [224p, 448p]
668.7M
-
37.9GB(bs=4)
7 A100 hours
Qwen2.5-ViT-LoRA
dynamic [224p, 448p]
2.6M/671.31M
-
27.4GB(bs=4)
5.5 A100 hours
Appendix
Table 12: Efficiency comparison results on model parameters, FLOPS, GPU memory utilization and time consumed during training.
Figure 5: Video Visualization from Magic Video Benchmark. From left to right, each column denotes videos from real sources, seaweed, seedance, and wan2.1.
Figure 6: Saliency Analysis. Saliency maps of our model on AI-generated video samples.
Figure 7: Video Visualization from Magic Video Benchmark.
Figure 8: Video Visualization from Magic Video Benchmark.
Figure 9: Video Visualization from Magic Video Benchmark.