Recent advances in generative video models have improved visual realism, making detection increasingly dependent on subtle temporal inconsistencies. However, these signals are weak and spatially localized, while most of the video content is redundant. This creates a fundamental mismatch: existing detectors rely on heavy backbones to model full videos, which leads to high computational cost and limited scalability. In this work, we rethink AI-generated video detection from a representation perspective. Instead of modeling entire videos, we restructure them into compact temporal slice representations that isolate informative temporal evolution. We introduce a lightweight framework using frequency-aware temporal slice consistency learning, where informative spatial rows and columns are aggregated over time to form slice-domain inputs. This reparameterization suppresses redundant appearance while preserving discriminative temporal dynamics, enabling efficient and targeted detection. By constructing slices from both high- and low-frequency regions, our method exposes complementary temporal artifacts, including unstable details and abnormal motion smoothness. We instantiate this idea in a Temporal Slice Consistency Network, which integrates task-driven slice localization, hierarchical positional encoding, and a lightweight Transformer to model cross-slice and cross-frequency dependencies. We further introduce AI-Artist, a new benchmark with artist-curated videos from recent high-fidelity generators, including Seedance and Kling. Experiments on GenVideo and AI-Artist show that our method achieves strong performance while requiring over 400× fewer model-forward FLOPs and 3.6× faster model inference than the strong video-based baseline ReStraV (2.9× faster end to end, including preprocessing), enabling scalable and practical deployment.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of representative paradigms for AI-generated video detection. Existing methods mainly rely on full-frame modeling or patch-level artifact mining. In contrast, our method reformulates videos into compact frequency-aware temporal slices, where temporal evolution is explicitly encoded for lightweight and effective detection.
Figure 2: Motivation and empirical evidence for temporal-slice-based AI-generated video detection. (a) Temporal-slice visualization of natural and AI-generated videos. While natural videos tend to exhibit smoother and more coherent temporal evolution in static background regions, AI-generated videos may show temporal deformations and irregular textures that become more evident in slice form. (b) Distributional analysis of natural ( blue ) and AI-generated ( red ) videos in GenVideo [ 8 ] under patch-domain and slice-domain representations. Compared with selected spatial patches, temporal slices yield more distinguishable distributions, especially in high-frequency regions. (c) Performance–efficiency comparison with representative detectors. The horizontal and vertical axes denote mAP and ACC on GenVideo, respectively, while the bubble size indicates GFLOPs. Our method achieves a favorable trade-off, approaching the upper-right region with substantially lower computational cost.
Figure 3: Framework of our detection method TSC-Net. Given an input video, we first perform content-preserving preprocessing, key-frame selection, frequency-aware patch localization, and multi-order slice assembly to obtain compact temporal slice representations. A lightweight Transformer then models cross-slice and cross-frequency dependencies for AI-generated video detection.
Model
Metric
Dataset
Mean
Sora
Morph Studio
Gen2
HotShot
Lavie
Show-1
Moon Valley
Crafter
Model Scope
Wild Scrape
MLEP (I)
ACC
0.1964
0.1214
0.1340
0.2586
0.1970
0.1429
0.0208
0.0770
0.3614
0.1384
0.1648
AP
0.6180
0.6324
0.7211
0.6645
0.5559
0.6048
0.4855
0.5815
0.7319
0.6331
0.6229
AUROC
0.6116
0.6803
0.7943
0.6187
0.6098
0.6722
0.5580
0.6313
0.7564
0.6714
0.6604
NPR (I)
ACC
0.5536
0.9943
0.9970
0.7643
0.9710
0.9957
0.9984
0.9980
0.9829
0.7299
0.8985
AP
0.8434
0.9971
0.9920
0.9122
0.9893
0.9898
0.9977
0.9985
0.9854
0.8892
0.9595
Table 1: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods in terms of Accuracy (ACC), Average Precision (AP), and Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) on the GenVideo dataset. (I) and (V) denote image- and video-based methods, respectively.
Model
Params
GFLOPs
Inference Time (ms)
Real-video FP
Prep.
Model
Total
Prep.
Model
Total
#FP
FPR (%)
MLEP (I)
1.441 M
0.012
14.35
14.362
7.975
5.998
13.973
422
4.22
NPR (I)
1.438 M
0.012
14.01
14.022
5.495
2.185
7.680
1,387
13.87
VIBAIGCD (I)
430.0 M
0.012
415.2
415.212
8.322
30.50
38.822
4,813
48.13
AIDE (I)
897.8 M
1.131
225.7
226.831
68.972
20.58
89.552
972
9.72
TALL (V)
86.92 M
0.012
15.21
15.222
4.903
9.496
14.399
6,949
69.49
Table 2: Complexity and inference efficiency. GFLOPs and inference time are measured per video on GenVideo using the same measurement protocol for all methods: “Prep.” denotes method-specific, non-learnable data preprocessing, “Model” the model forward pass, and “Total” their sum. The last two columns report false positives on 10,000 real MSR-VTT clips at a threshold of 0.5 (generated videos as the positive class); D3 is not included in this comparison because it outputs an uncalibrated ranking score.
Figure 4: The comparison of various models on our AI-Artist Dataset.
Figure 5: Detection results of different detectors against post-processing operations on GenVideo, including Gaussian blur, JPEG compression, and Gaussian noise.
Method
GenVideo
AI-Artist
mAP
mAUROC
mAP
mAUROC
Select Patch
0.9871
0.9846
0.9644
0.9684
Resize
0.9919
0.9893
0.9541
0.9365
Only Row
0.9965
0.9958
0.9735
0.9762
Only Column
0.9969
0.9960
0.9815
0.9784
1-Seg. MP
0.9904
0.9879
0.9808
0.9807
Table 3: Compact ablation on slice construction and temporal coverage (mAP / mAUROC). Ours uses one temporal window. “1-Seg. MP” selects multiple HF/LF patches in that window; “4-Seg.” selects one HF/LF patch pair per window across four windows. Full results and runtimes are in Tables 6 and 7 .
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Visual comparison of temporal slice representations for videos generated by an earlier model, a more recent model, and a real video. (a) A sample generated by Zeroscope-v2-xl [ 51 ] , an earlier text-to-video model included in GenVideo. (b) A sample generated by PixVerse V5.6 [ 33 ] , a recent commercial model from our newly collected AI-Artist benchmark. (c) A real video. Following the red dashed line, we unfold one row of pixels along the temporal dimension to obtain the temporal slice.
Collection Protocol
Sub-dataset
#Videos
Duration
Resolution
Frame Rate
Web-Collection
Seedance (Film)
55
0.5–15s
496×864 – 2940×1260
24–60 fps
Kling 3.0
46
1–15s
480×816 – 1176×1764
24–30 fps
AI_artists
120
1–8s
960×544 – 2538×1080
24–30 fps
Self-Generation
Runway Gen-4.5
40
5s
720p
24 fps
PixVerse V5.6
40
3s
720p
24 fps
Hailuo 2.3
35
5s
1366×768
24 fps
Appendix
Table 4: Statistics of the AI-generated video subsets in AI-Artist. For binary evaluation, these generated videos are paired with an equal number of real videos sampled from the GenVideo OOD real-video split.
Figure 7: Distributional analysis of natural ( blue ) videos in GenVideo and AI-generated ( red ) videos in AI-Artist under patch-domain and slice-domain representations. The top row shows selected spatial patches, while the bottom row shows the corresponding temporal slices. Columns correspond to high-frequency and low-frequency spatial regions. Compared with Fig. 2 (b), AI-Artist exhibits stronger overlap between natural and AI-generated distributions, indicating that recent high-fidelity generators substantially reduce simple distributional discrepancies.
Model
Metric
AI-Artist
Mean
Seedance (Film)
Seedance
Kling
Runway
PixVerse
Hailuo
Luma
AI_artists
MLEP (I)
ACC
0.0926
0.0000
0.1522
0.1000
0.1795
0.0000
0.0000
0.0083
0.0666
AP
0.4942
0.5377
0.5361
0.5544
0.6382
0.5345
0.6031
0.3387
0.5296
AUROC
0.4781
0.6168
0.4920
0.5262
0.6220
0.4971
0.5900
0.1622
0.4980
NPR (I)
ACC
0.4444
0.1471
0.8696
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.3750
0.7295
AP
0.7717
0.6426
0.9342
0.9882
0.9929
0.9949
1.0000
0.6768
0.8752
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison with state-of-the-art methods in terms of Accuracy (ACC), Average Precision (AP) and Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) on the AI-Artist dataset.
Figure 8: Ablation on key hyperparameters.
Method
GenVideo
AI-Artist
Time
ACC
mAP
mAUROC
ACC
mAP
mAUROC
(ms)
Raw Temporal Slice
0.9651
0.9970
0.9962
0.8618
0.9775
0.9763
1.426
1st-order Diff Slice
0.9658
0.9969
0.9955
0.8638
0.9745
0.9757
1.460
2nd-order Diff Slice
0.9635
0.9939
0.9906
0.8520
0.9691
0.9562
1.465
Select Patch
0.9164
0.9871
0.9846
0.8536
0.9644
0.9684
1.414
Resize
0.9323
0.9919
0.9893
0.8297
0.9541
0.9365
1.463
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study on different temporal slice representations, including temporal-order slice representations, slice construction strategies, slice directions, high- and low-frequency components, and positional encoding variants. Results are reported on GenVideo and AI-Artist in terms of ACC, mAP, and mAUROC. Inference time (ms) is also reported.
Method
GenVideo
AI-Artist
Prep.
Model
ACC
mAP
mAUROC
ACC
mAP
mAUROC
(ms)
(ms)
1-Seg. MP
0.9375
0.9904
0.9879
0.8903
0.9808
0.9807
4.668
1.451
4-Seg.
0.9785
0.9982
0.9977
0.9125
0.9849
0.9836
8.908
1.522
Ours (1-Seg.)
0.9698
0.9973
0.9967
0.8558
0.9805
0.9773
3.198
1.478
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation on temporal coverage under a matched budget of four HF and four LF slices per directional branch. “Prep.” and “Model” denote preprocessing and model-forward time per video.
Stage
Time (ms)
GFLOPs
Temporal-window/key-frame selection and grayscale processing
0.796
0.0415
Frequency-aware patch selection
1.652
0.0230
Temporal-slice and difference construction
0.750
0.0136
Preprocessing subtotal
3.198
0.0781
Model forward
1.478
0.109
Full pipeline
4.676
0.187
Appendix
Table 8: Stage-wise computational cost of TSC-Net per video on GenVideo.
Method
TN
FP
FPR (%)
Specificity (%)
MLEP (I)
9,578
422
4.22
95.78
NPR (I)
8,613
1,387
13.87
86.13
VIBAIGCD (I)
5,187
4,813
48.13
51.87
AIDE (I)
9,028
972
9.72
90.28
TALL (V)
3,051
6,949
69.49
30.51
XCLIP (V)
3,494
6,506
65.06
34.94
Appendix
Table 9: False-positive analysis on 10,000 real MSR-VTT clips at a threshold of 0.5 , with generated videos as the positive class. Since only real videos are evaluated, only TN and FP are reported. D3 is omitted because it produces an uncalibrated ranking score without a predefined binary threshold.
Figure 9: t-SNE visualization of features extracted from GenVideo using representative state-of-the-art methods and our method.
Figure 10: Failure case on a highly realistic video in Seedance (Film). Left: sampled frames from the input video. Right: row-wise and column-wise temporal slices extracted from high-frequency and low-frequency regions. Although the slice representations preserve temporal evolution, the video shows only subtle facial expression changes with limited temporal variation, making both high-frequency and low-frequency slices weakly discriminative. As a result, all compared methods, including ours, fail on this example.
Figure 11: Visualization of Seedance (Film) videos collected from public online communities.
Figure 12: Visualization of Kling 3.0 videos collected from official showcases and public creator communities.
Figure 13: Visualization of AI-generated creator videos collected from Douyin public platforms.