An image tool can change its underlying generator while retaining its public name, making version attribution from online posts ambiguous. We study this problem after the ChatGPT Images 2.5 launch. Our frozen collection contains 3,478 images from 2,440 posts across 8 sources. Recorded posting times fall within the first 51.1 hours after the announcement. It records three attribution tiers and retains standalone images after image-form filtering and targeted review. Caption claims and host records provide admission evidence, not independently verified generator identity. The observed content profile depends on the source mixture: NightCafe supplies 39.0% of images but 77.0% of CLIP-assigned fantasy scenes. We then evaluate six frozen detectors at thresholds calibrated to a 5% flag rate on reference photographs. Collection flag rates range from 3.7 to 56.4%, falling 42-81 percentage points below GenImage recall. Held-out artwork false-positive rates range from 1.5 to 96.5%, so a higher collection flag rate does not by itself establish better detection. An exploratory X-only comparison with our April collection finds a higher September flag rate for Effort, and a suggestive difference for DoU, under fixed-threshold post-clustered bootstrap intervals. Attribution, content and processing differences prevent a causal interpretation of these contrasts. The collection supports analysis of reported model use during a product transition, with source and attribution evidence retained for interpretation. The collection is released at https://scam.ai/research.
The release of GPT-image-2 by OpenAI marks a watershed moment in AI-generated imagery: the boundary between photographic reality and synthetic content has never been more difficult to discern. We introduce the GPT-Image-2 Twitter Dataset, the first published dataset of GPT-image-2 generated images, sourced from publicly available Twitter/X posts in the immediate aftermath of the model's April 21, 2026 release. Leveraging the Twitter API v2 and a multi-stage curation pipeline spanning multilingual text heuristics (English, Japanese, and Chinese), browser-automated Twitter "Made with AI" badge verification, and model name variant matching, we curate 10,217 confirmed GPT-image-2 images from 27,662 collected records over a six-day window. We characterize the dataset across four analyses: CLIP-based zero-shot subject taxonomy, OCR text legibility (82.0% of images contain detectable text), face detection (59.2% of images, 22,583 total faces), and semantic clustering (137 CLIP ViT-L/14 clusters). A key negative result is that C2PA content credentials are systematically stripped by Twitter's CDN on upload, rendering cryptographic provenance verification infeasible for social-media-sourced AI images. The dataset and all curation code are released publicly.
A marketplace review photograph is a document: platforms approve refunds on it, and generative models drove the cost of forging one to zero. We study that detection problem, so we build a detector and attach an attribution map as its evidence, then measure what that pair delivers on 186,527 images under controls designed to change our conclusions when something is wrong. Compression history, not synthesis, drives naive evaluation: our strongest model reaches 0.9999 PR-AUC (area under the precision-recall curve) on a product-disjoint split, yet falls to 0.7254 once we re-encode synthetics into the real class's format, while five public detectors move by at most 0.07. Aligning one class relocates the cue rather than removing it, and the repaired model then assigns native files a median probability of synthesis of 0.0004. One identical final encode for both classes repairs that, and a three-seed factorial credits the encoding change with the whole gain (+0.176 +- 0.009 PR-AUC). That encode equalises the last stage only: forensic features alone still separate the classes at 0.7145 against a base rate of 0.254. For evidence we test maps causally, against controls that never consult the detector. Whether an attribution ranking exists at all depends on whether the detector reacts to the image. On our first-fix detector, which calls 96 of 100 edited frames real, no map beats a random one. On the detector we selected, twelve of seventeen maps clear that control on edited images and eight on generated ones; perturbation leads both axes and no gradient-CAM variant shows a positive advantage. The trivial controls never clear it, and on generated images the centre prior is worse than random. Our ensembled regional map clears both axes and takes the top pixel AP at 12.4 s per map against 44.9 for occlusion. Clearing a detector-blind control is not yet a faithful explanation, and we demonstrate none.
Leonid Kuturin, Ilya Sotnikov, Mark Khusnutdinov +4
Text-rich images often contain privacy-sensitive, transactional, or decision-relevant information. As recent multimodal image generation models become increasingly capable of synthesizing realistic textual content and structured visual designs, detecting AI-generated text-rich images has become an important challenge for digital trust and content authenticity. Existing benchmarks, however, largely focus on object-centric images and provide limited coverage of scenarios where textual semantics and layout organization are central. In this paper, we introduce a multi-domain benchmark for detecting text-rich images generated by OpenAI's GPT Image 2. The benchmark contains 8,602 images across six representative categories: commercial posters, infographics, academic posters, receipts, tables, and UI screenshots. Using this benchmark, we evaluate five representative AI-generated image detectors in a zero-shot setting and analyze their overall, category-wise, and post-processing robustness. Our results show that detector performance is highly domain-dependent: methods that perform well in some categories often fail on others, and even the strongest conventional detector exhibits severe sensitivity to JPEG compression. We further conduct an exploratory evaluation with a multimodal vision-language model, revealing both its promise and its limitations on structured formats. These findings highlight the need for text- and layout-aware detection methods for modern AI-generated images. Our dataset is released at XXX.