AI-Generated Images: What Humans and Machines See When They Look at the Same Image

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.

Rapid advances in image generation models call for interpretable AI-generated image detection methods that not only determine authenticity but also provide supporting visual evidence. Existing approaches may produce inconsistencies between generated explanations and localized evidence regions, undermining the reliability of explanations for authenticity decisions. Meanwhile, existing benchmarks provide limited coverage of the diverse human-centric scenes prevalent in generated imagery. To address these limitations, we investigate authenticity detection with grounded and explainable visual evidence in human-centric scenes. We present HAVE (Human-centric AI-generated Visual Evidence), a diverse human-centric dataset comprising 40K real and 39K AI-generated images from 10 recent generators, with 106K localized evidence instances across 8 evidence categories, each annotated with a bounding box and a region-aligned explanation. We further propose PAVE, a Perception-Aware Visual Evidence framework that jointly performs authenticity prediction, visual evidence grounding, and region-aligned explanation generation. PAVE employs a judge-guided alignment reward to assess region--explanation consistency and evidence validity, together with perception-aware regularization that contrasts token-level predictions between original and randomly masked images to promote reliance on visual input. Experiments on HAVE and external datasets demonstrate strong performance in authenticity detection, visual evidence grounding, and explanation quality. Code and data will be released upon publication.

Recent AI-generated image (AIGI) detectors perform well on natural-image benchmarks, but their behavior on text-rich forgeries, such as fabricated screenshots, documents, and news pages prevalent in misinformation, remains untested. We introduce TextFake, a 20,000-image benchmark for text-rich AIGI detection spanning 28 languages, 4 topic categories, and 2 scene modalities. Fake images are synthesized via a four-stage pipeline that annotates real images along three controlled dimensions and generates counterparts through distribution-aligned structured prompting, ruling out covariate shortcuts. Zero-shot evaluation of 14 specialized detectors and 3 frontier VLM APIs reveals a large systematic gap: no method exceeds 80% accuracy, with some dropping over 60% from natural-image benchmarks. Diagnostic evaluations identify three failure modes: the Text Density Curse, where dense glyphs overwhelm low-level detectors; Cloaking via Rendering Fidelity, where stronger text rendering suppresses enerative artifacts; and Threshold Collapse, where routine perturbations drive detectors toward chance-level performance.