Receipt Replay OOD: A Small Benchmark for Screen Replay Detection Under Domain Shift

Cross-domain shifts challenge Presentation Attack Detection (PAD) on ID Cards, given the restricted data available due to privacy concerns. This work proposes a compact multimodal model, based on new generative and discriminative blocks, which combines visual and textual data for PAD on genuine and synthetic ID images. While multimodal models exhibit strong generalisation after supervised fine-tuning, they fail in zero-shot settings. Our findings underscore that model capacity and real-world data are essential for reliable PAD, while existing synthetic datasets may not reflect real-world challenges. We argue for a re-evaluation of synthetic data as a benchmark and emphasise the need for more realistic, diverse datasets to advance PAD research.

OpenAI's GPT-Image-2 has effectively erased the visual boundary between authentic and AI-edited document images: a single number on a receipt can be replaced in under a second for a few cents. We release AIForge-Doc v2, a paired dataset of 3,066 GPT-Image-2 document forgeries with pixel-precise masks in DocTamper-compatible format, and benchmark four lines of defence: human inspectors (N=120, n=365 pair-votes via the public 2AFC site CanUSpotAI.com), TruFor (generic forensic), DocTamper (qcf-568, document-specific), and the same GPT-Image-2 model as a zero-shot self-judge -- asked, to avoid the trivial "image is mostly real" reading, whether any region was generated or edited by an AI image model. Human 2AFC accuracy is 0.501, indistinguishable from chance: even side-by-side, inspectors cannot tell GPT-Image-2 receipt forgeries from authentic counterparts. The three computational judges sit only modestly above (TruFor 0.599, DocTamper 0.585, self-judge 0.532). The self-judge fails consistently, not by chance: across five prompt strategies and four policies for handling ambiguous responses, AUC never rises above 0.59. To rule out the possibility that the two forensic detectors are broken on our source domain rather than blind to AI inpainting, we calibrate each on a same-domain traditional-tampering set built for its training distribution: TruFor reaches AUC 0.962 on cross-camera splicing of our dataset, DocTamper reaches 0.852 on cross-document OCR-token splicing with two-pass JPEG re-encoding. Both retain near-published performance on traditional tampering; switching to GPT-Image-2 inpainting drops AUC by 0.27-0.36 (0.962->0.599 TruFor; 0.852->0.585 DocTamper), isolating a detection gap specific to GPT-Image-2 inpainting. We release the dataset, pipeline, four-judge protocol, and calibration sets.

Identity document forgery has undergone a fundamental capability shift: generative AI tools now enable high-fidelity document synthesis and field-level manipulation with minimal technical expertise, while detection methods remain constrained by benchmarks that do not reflect this threat. The resulting attack surface spans physical presentation, digital injection, and fully generative synthesis, introducing distinct forensic failure modes that require a unified threat model and evaluation framework. This survey provides, to our knowledge, the first unified treatment of Presentation Attacks, Digital Injection Attacks, and GenAI-driven synthesis within a single identity verification threat model. We trace detection methodologies from rule-based heuristics through forensic localisation, injection-aware pipelines, foundation models, and few-shot frameworks. A systematic audit of public datasets from 2019--2025 exposes a persistent Reality Gap between benchmark conditions and operational deployment. We further analyse large multimodal models for identity document manipulation, identifying Script-Dependent Generative Instability (SDGI) as a recurring typographic failure mode in non-Latin script inpainting. Finally, zero-shot benchmarking on unseen synthesised ID cards shows that even the strongest publicly available models achieve APCER values above 25% under security-oriented operating conditions, highlighting substantial limits in cross-domain generalisation. We conclude by outlining future directions toward forensically grounded, privacy-preserving, and legally accountable identity verification systems.