Evaluates the ability of AI-generated image detectors to generalize across different semantic domains (human, animal, object, scene) and resist modern, photorealistic generative models. It probes whether models rely on content-agnostic artifacts versus semantic features for robust real-vs-fake classification. Use when the user wants to benchmark on GenImage, Chameleon, Mirage-Test, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Accuracy (%).
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill omniaid-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Omniaid Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-omniaid-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: omniaid-eval
description: Evaluates the ability of AI-generated image detectors to generalize across different semantic domains (human, animal, object, scene) and resist modern, photorealistic generative models. It probes whether models rely on content-agnostic artifacts versus semantic features for robust real-vs-fake classification. Use when the user wants to benchmark on GenImage, Chameleon, Mirage-Test, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Accuracy (%).
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2511.08423
bibtex_key: guo2025omniaid
confidence: high
---
# omniaid-eval
> OmniAID: Decoupling Semantic and Artifacts for Universal AI-Generated Image Detection in the Wild — Guo et al. (2025) (arXiv:2511.08423, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the ability of AI-generated image detectors to generalize across different semantic domains (human, animal, object, scene) and resist modern, photorealistic generative models. It probes whether models rely on content-agnostic artifacts versus semantic features for robust real-vs-fake classification.
## Datasets
- **GenImage** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Chameleon** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Mirage-Test** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `Accuracy (%)` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Standard binary classification accuracy: (True Positives + True Negatives) / Total Samples. Reported per semantic category and as a mean across categories.
- `Average Precision (AP)` — range: percent
- Mean Average Precision computed over the precision-recall curve for binary real-vs-fake classification. Reported per category and as a mean.
## Input / output format
**Input**: RGB images resized to 512×512, then downsampled to 336×336 for the CLIP-ViT-L/14 backbone. Each instance is a single image labeled as Real or AI-Generated.
**Output**: Binary classification label (Real/Fake) or confidence score for each image.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, labels):
# predictions: list of predicted labels or probabilities
# labels: list of ground truth labels (0=Real, 1=Fake)
accuracy = sum(p == l for p, l in zip(predictions, labels)) / len(labels)
ap = average_precision_score(labels, predictions)
return {'accuracy': accuracy, 'ap': ap}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models often overfit to specific generator fingerprints, causing catastrophic failure on unseen or modern generators (Real/Fake bias).
- Evaluating only on outdated benchmarks like GenImage-SD v1.4 masks poor generalization to contemporary diffusion models.
- The 'Anime' category in Mirage-Test contains only generated samples, making overall accuracy for that category meaningless without separate real/fake reporting.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> To ensure a fair comparison, we follow the protocol of [genimage, aide], training all models (including our standard OmniAID) exclusively on the GenImage-SD v1.4 dataset to assess generalization from a limited, standard benchmark. Alongside this, to evaluate performance in a realistic, modern scenario, we also train our OmniAID-Mirage model on our modern Mirage-Train dataset. All models are then evaluated on the GenImage [genimage] test set, the in-the-wild Chameleon [aide] dataset, and our new Mirage-Test. Unless otherwise specified, we report classification Accuracy (%) as the primary metric. More Average Precision (AP) results are available in the Supplementary Material.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{guo2025omniaid,
title={OmniAID: Decoupling Semantic and Artifacts for Universal AI-Generated Image Detection in the Wild},
author={Guo et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2511.08423}
}
```
- arXiv: 2511.08423
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!