arXiv:2605.08820cs.CVcs.AI2026-05被引 1

构建多模态基准,检测电商退款中AI伪造的证据。

FraudBench: A Multimodal Benchmark for Detecting AI-Generated Fraudulent Refund Evidence

论文配图:FraudBench: A Multimodal Benchmark for Detecting AI-Generated Fraudulent Refund Evidence
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 基于真实用户评论与商品数据,合成虚假损坏图像
  • 现有模型对伪造证据识别率低于50%基准线
  • 适合反欺诈系统研发与检测算法评估

人工智能生成的图像日益逼真且易于应用于具体现实索赔中,带来验证视觉证据的新挑战。一种新兴风险是利用伪造或合成图像支持产品损坏、配送不当或服务缺陷等退款诉求。现有AI生成图像检测基准主要聚焦于单一真实性分类、跨生成器迁移或取证定位,对与诉求相关的伪造证据检测研究不足。为此,我们提出FraudBench,一个用于检测AI生成退款欺诈证据的多模态基准。该数据集源自电商平台、外卖和旅行服务的真实用户评论证据。我们收集真实证据图像及其关联的评论与商品元数据,通过大语言模型辅助筛选与人工标注,识别出真实损坏与未损坏样本,并使用六种先进图像编辑与生成模型,从真实未损坏图像中合成虚假损坏证据。在FraudBench上,我们评估了多模态大模型(MLLMs)、专用AI生成图像检测器及人类参与者的表现。实验表明,当前的MLLMs虽能识别真实损坏证据,但在多数伪造损坏子集上表现不佳,伪造损坏检测率(TPR)普遍低于50%基准线;专用检测器整体表现更优但跨生成器不一致,且在真实损坏样本上产生误报,揭示了通用图像检测与可靠诉求相关证据验证之间存在显著差距。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated images have become increasingly realistic and readily adaptable to concrete real-world claims, creating new challenges for verifying visual evidence. A concrete emerging risk is AI-generated refund fraud, in which manipulated or synthetic images are used to support claims about damaged products, poor delivery conditions, or service-related defects. Existing AI-generated image detection benchmarks mainly evaluate standalone authenticity classification, cross-generator transfer, or forensic localization, leaving claim-conditioned fraudulent evidence detection underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce FraudBench, a multimodal benchmark for detecting AI-generated fraudulent refund evidence. FraudBench is constructed from real-world user-review evidence across e-commerce, food delivery, and travel-service scenarios. We curate real evidence images together with their associated review and product metadata, identify genuine damaged and undamaged evidence through MLLM-assisted filtering and human annotation, and synthesize fake-damaged evidence from genuine undamaged reference images using six state-of-the-art image editing and generation models. Using FraudBench, we evaluate MLLMs, specialized AI-generated image detectors, and human participants under the same settings. Experiments show that current MLLMs often recognize real-damaged evidence but fail on many fake-damaged subsets, with fake-damage detection rates (TPR) far below the 50% baseline on most generator subsets. Specialized detectors generally perform better but remain inconsistent across generators and can produce false positives on real-damaged samples, revealing a clear gap between generic AI image detection and reliable claim-conditioned refund-evidence verification.

AI伪造反欺诈多模态检测

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。