Detecting differences between photographs and computer generated images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of computer graphic rendering software and the appearance of more and more photorealistic pictures, the need for automatically distinguishing Computer Generated Images from real photographs has become of particular interest to criminal and forensic science investigators. Previous studies have been based on wavelet statistics, while in our study we examined several visual features derived from colour, edge, saturation and texture features extracted with the Gabor filter. Based on the feature extraction, we examined three commonly-used classifiers: non-linear SVM, Weighted k-nearest neighbors and Fuzzy k-nearest neighbors with 1,044 Computer Generated Images and 1,114 photographs downloaded from open sources. Finally we report on the comparative analysis of the results of these automatic classifications: Gabor filter based texture feature shows very promising results (99% for photo and 91.5% for CGI) while visual features show some abilities to perform differentiation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it