ArticleScientific reports2025
Detection of AI generated images using combined uncertainty measures and particle swarm optimised rejection mechanism.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biomedical Research Images Manipulated by Generative AI to Alter Scientific Outcomes: Diagnostic Study of Human and Automated Detection.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As AI-generated images become increasingly photorealistic, distinguishing them from natural images poses a growing challenge. This paper presents a robust detection framework that leverages multiple uncertainty measures to decide whether to trust or reject a model's predictions. We focus on three complementary techniques: Fisher Information, which captures the sensitivity of model parameters to input variations; entropy-based uncertainty from Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout, which reflects predictive variability; and predictive variance from a Deep Kernel Learning (DKL) framework using a Gaussian Process (GP) classifier. To integrate these diverse uncertainty signals, we employ Particle Swarm Optimisation (PSO) to learn optimal weightings and determine an adaptive rejection threshold. The model is trained on Stable Diffusion-generated images and evaluated on GLIDE, VQDM, Midjourney, BigGAN and StyleGAN3 each presenting significant distribution shifts. While standard metrics like prediction probability and Fisher-based measures perform well in distribution, they degrade under shift. In contrast, the Combined Uncertainty measure consistently achieves an incorrect rejection rate of approximately 70% on unseen generators, successfully filtering out most misclassified AI samples. Although the system occasionally rejects correct predictions from newer generators, this conservative behaviour remains acceptable, as rejected synthetic samples serve as valuable input for retraining. Crucially, it maintains high acceptance of accurate predictions for natural images and in-domain AI data. Under adversarial attacks (FGSM and PGD), the Combined Uncertainty method rejects around 61% of successful attacks, while the GP-based uncertainty alone achieves up to 80%. Notably, the Combined approach maintains strong selectivity, rarely rejecting correct predictions. Overall, our findings highlight the benefit of multi-source uncertainty fusion for resilient and adaptive AI-generated image detection.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.