Cited by 177Digital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques

DE-FAKE: Detection and Attribution of Fake Images Generated by Text-to-Image Generation Models

Open access
Sha, Zeyang, Li, Zheng, Yu, Ning, Zhang, Yang·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

Abstract

Text-to-image generation models that generate images based on prompt descriptions have attracted an increasing amount of attention during the past few months. Despite their encouraging performance, these models raise concerns about the misuse of their generated fake images. To tackle this problem, we pioneer a systematic study on the detection and attribution of fake images generated by text-to-image generation models. Concretely, we first build a machine learning classifier to detect the fake images generated by various text-to-image generation models. We then attribute these fake images to their source models, such that model owners can be held responsible for their models' misuse. We further investigate how prompts that generate fake images affect detection and attribution. We conduct extensive experiments on four popular text-to-image generation models, including DALL·E 2, Stable Diffusion, GLIDE, and Latent Diffusion, and two benchmark prompt-image datasets. Empirical results show that (1) fake images generated by various models can be distinguished from real ones, as there exists a common artifact shared by fake images from different models; (2) fake images can be effectively attributed to their source models, as different models leave unique fingerprints in their generated images; (3) prompts with the "person'' topic or a length between 25 and 75 enable models to generate fake images with higher authenticity. All findings contribute to the community's insight into the threats caused by text-to-image generation models. We appeal to the community's consideration of the counterpart solutions, like ours, against the rapidly-evolving fake image generation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3576915.3616588

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Steven Bird and Edward Loper. NLTK: The Natural Language Toolkit. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). ACL, 2004.
  2. Kreiss Elisa, Goodman Noah D, and Potts Christopher. Concadia: Tackling Image Accessibility with Descriptive Texts and Context. CoRR abs/2104.08376, 2021. · arXiv
  3. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative Adversarial Nets. In Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pages 2672-2680. NIPS, 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sha, Z., Li, Z., Yu, N., & Zhang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Helmholtz Center for Information Security (DE)
  • Salesforce (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-11-15
Pages
3418-3432
ISSN
1543-7221 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388858946
Cited by
175
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 15
FWCI
18.75
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Keywords
fake image detection, text-to-image generation, model attribution, generative AI misuse, Stable Diffusion, glides, latent diffusion models, image artifacts, deepfake detection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review