Frontier vision-language models have overtaken young adults at detecting AI-generated portraits -- but not their calibration

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to detect whether AI-generated images contain visible artifacts, yet their ability to analyze such artifacts remains poorly understood. A correct image-level decision can still hide important failures: a model may correctly flag an artifact while relying on the wrong visual cue, selecting the wrong region, or describing a defect that the image does not support. To evaluate these behaviors directly, we introduce SalArt-VQA, a diagnostic benchmark for fine-grained SALient ARTifact understanding in AI-generated images. SalArt-VQA contains 950 images and 3,681 human-authored multiple-choice questions spanning artifact images, matched real reference images, and paired generated reference images. Four aligned question types evaluate presence detection, semantic localization, spatial grounding, and evidence-grounded defect identification, while the reference splits test calibration and abstention when the annotated defect is absent. Across 20 VLMs, SalArt-VQA reveals failures that image-level detection accuracy hides: the strongest model reaches 99.37% detection recall on artifact images but answers all four artifact-side questions correctly on only 53.26% of images. Comparing artifact images with artifact-free references reveals a sensitivity-calibration tradeoff: sensitive models often make unsupported artifact claims, while conservative models avoid false alarms largely by missing real artifacts. These results show that high artifact detection accuracy alone does not imply grounded artifact understanding. SalArt-VQA exposes these hidden failure modes and provides a fine-grained evaluation of whether VLM artifact claims are supported by local visual evidence.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to make decisions from visual inputs. We introduce FAIRLENS, a benchmark and evaluation framework for measuring both the fairness and the validity of VLM responses in three high-stakes domains: hiring, legal, and healthcare. FAIRLENS pairs real face images spanning gender, race, and age groups with closed- and open-ended questions, giving more than 100K image-question pairs per model, and evaluates responses from four complementary views: demographic parity over adverse outcome rates, soundness, demographic association over unsupported roles and statuses, and bias in free-text generation. Soundness is the central validity criterion: a response is sound when it follows the evidence stated in the question and abstains when the image cannot support an answer. Evaluating eight VLMs, we find that the primary failure is unwarranted inference rather than unequal treatment. Models routinely infer qualifications, threat, illness, or professional role from a face instead of abstaining, and the weakest model does so on 99% of the questions its input cannot answer. These failures are most severe in legal and healthcare, where recognizing insufficient evidence matters most, and disparity metrics alone would miss them: parity gaps are small in absolute terms, yet when baseline adverse rates are low the same gap means one demographic group receives adverse labels several times as often as another, and a small gap can equally reflect a model that treats every group unsafely. Bias in free-text responses is only loosely coupled to multiple-choice accuracy, so correct structured answers do not imply safe generation. FAIRLENS shows that fair high-stakes VLM behavior requires similar treatment across groups and refusal to infer high-stakes attributes from appearance, and its question suite transfers to any face corpus with demographic annotations.

Recent generative models have largely closed the gap on low-level artifacts - pixel fingerprints, frequency anomalies, upsampling traces - particularly in person-centric and partial-edit settings where the manipulated region is small and surrounded by photometrically authentic content. We introduce Social Gaze Consistency, a high-level semantic cue defined as the mutual coherence of gaze direction, head-eye alignment, and pupil placement between interacting individuals, and show that it constitutes a previously underutilized detection axis orthogonal to existing low-level paradigms. We instantiate this insight through three coupled mechanisms: (i) a controlled diagnostic dataset with region-specific perturbations of gaze-consistent imagery, where strict pair-level grouping forecloses generator-fingerprint memorization as an optimization-time shortcut rather than relying on augmentation; (ii) Block-Compositional Caption Supervision, which holds a single 5-block reasoning skeleton invariant across 1,250 macro-combined captions, decoupling reasoning consistency from surface diversity; (iii) Cross-architecture validation showing the same supervision improves a vision-language backbone (FakeVLM) by +3.7 pp on the COCOAI Interaction subset (balanced accuracy 67.8 -> 71.5) and +1.3 pp on the COCOAI Person subset (83.0 -> 84.3), with consistent gains on a vision-only backbone (Effort), evidencing a backbone-agnostic cue. Real- and fake-class recalls rise simultaneously, ruling out a "predict-all-fake" artifact. A four-step mechanistic account - paired-edit shortcut blocking, hard-to-easy difficulty transfer, CLIP prior preservation, and diffusion-family shared spectral weakness in periocular structure - explains why training on a single inpainter (FLUX.1-Fill) transfers to multi-generator suites. We will release the code upon acceptance to facilitate reproducibility.