CNN and Transfer-Learning Methods for Fake Image Detection

The advent of AI-generated and manipulated images has increased the necessity for effective detection systems.Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are the leader in fake image classification, but their performance is dependent on training methodology.This paper contrasts CNNs trained from scratch with transfer learning (TL) for fake image detection.We compare models across benchmarks and manipulation types with focus on critical metrics: classification accuracy, computational efficiency (training time and model size), generalization to new data, and resource utilization (memory/GPU).For example, a recent work reported that a MobileNet model fine-tuned using transfer learning reached 90.10% accuracy on the CIFAKE AI-generated image dataset, outperforming larger architectures.We present experimental results in tables and figures to highlight performance trends.We examine the effect of data quality and manipulation complexity (e.g., StyleGAN vs. human-edited images) on detection.Our results show that transfer learning tends to provide higher accuracy and faster convergence with limited data, while scratch-trained networks may require additional data and compute to reach similar performance.However, dataset biases (e.g.background cues) may affect all models.We conclude with recommendations on selecting appropriate models given hardware constraints and application requirements.

Publication Details

Journal
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Published
2025-06-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.56726/irjmets77187
Primary Topic
Digital Media Forensic Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

CNN and Transfer-Learning Methods for Fake Image Detection

International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Digital Media Forensic Detection
article

CNN and Transfer-Learning Methods for Fake Image Detection

article en

Abstract

The advent of AI-generated and manipulated images has increased the necessity for effective detection systems.Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are the leader in fake image classification, but their performance is dependent on training methodology.This paper contrasts CNNs trained from scratch with transfer learning (TL) for fake image detection.We compare models across benchmarks and manipulation types with focus on critical metrics: classification accuracy, computational efficiency (training time and model size), generalization to new data, and resource utilization (memory/GPU).For example, a recent work reported that a MobileNet model fine-tuned using transfer learning reached 90.10% accuracy on the CIFAKE AI-generated image dataset, outperforming larger architectures.We present experimental results in tables and figures to highlight performance trends.We examine the effect of data quality and manipulation complexity (e.g., StyleGAN vs. human-edited images) on detection.Our results show that transfer learning tends to provide higher accuracy and faster convergence with limited data, while scratch-trained networks may require additional data and compute to reach similar performance.However, dataset biases (e.g.background cues) may affect all models.We conclude with recommendations on selecting appropriate models given hardware constraints and application requirements.

International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
Digital Media Forensic Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.