aiqbench analysis
This study evaluates the reliability of detection tools for ChatGPT Images 2.5 shortly after its launch, revealing significant discrepancies between claimed flag rates and actual recall performance across different datasets. The research highlights how ambiguous model versioning and source-specific content profiles complicate accurate attribution, cautioning against interpreting higher false-positive rates as superior detection capability.
ChatGPT Images 2.5 in the Wild: A Launch-Period Dataset and Detector Evaluation
arXiv:2609.15100v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An image tool can change its underlying generator while retaining its public name, making version attribution from online posts ambiguous. We study this problem after the ChatGPT Images 2.5 launch. Our frozen collection contains 3,478 images from 2,440 posts across 8 sources. Recorded posting times fall within the first 51.1 hours after the announcement. It records three attribution tiers and retains standalone images after image-form filtering and targeted review. Caption claims and host records provide admission evidence, not independently verified generator identity. The observed content profile depends on the source mixture: NightCafe supplies 39.0% of images but 77.0% of CLIP-assigned fantasy scenes. We then evaluate six frozen detectors at thresholds calibrated to a 5% flag rate on reference photographs. Collection flag rates range from 3.7 to 56.4%, falling 42-81 percentage points below GenImage recall. Held-out artwork false-positive rates range from 1.5 to 96.5%, so a higher collection flag rate does not by itself establish better detection. An exploratory X-only comparison with our April collection finds a higher September flag rate for Effort, and a suggestive difference for DoU, under fixed-threshold post-clustered bootstrap intervals. Attribution, content and processing differences prevent a causal interpretation of these contrasts. The collection supports analysis of reported model use during a product transition, with source and attribution evidence retained for interpretation.
Title:ChatGPT Images 2.5 in the Wild: A Launch-Period Dataset and Detector Evaluation
Abstract:An image tool can change its underlying generator while retaining its public name, making version attribution from online posts ambiguous. We study this problem after the ChatGPT Images 2.5 launch. Our frozen collection contains 3,478 images from 2,440 posts across 8 sources. Recorded posting times fall within the first 51.1 hours after the announcement. It records three attribution tiers and retains standalone images after image-form filtering and targeted review. Caption claims and host records provide admission evidence, not independently verified generator identity. The observed content profile depends on the source mixture: NightCafe supplies 39.0% of images but 77.0% of CLIP-assigned fantasy scenes. We then evaluate six frozen detectors at thresholds calibrated to a 5% flag rate on reference photographs. Collection flag rates range from 3.7 to 56.4%, falling 42-81 percentage points below GenImage recall. Held-out artwork false-positive rates range from 1.5 to 96.5%, so a higher collection flag rate does not by itself establish better detection. An exploratory X-only comparison with our April collection finds a higher September flag rate for Effort, and a suggestive difference for DoU, under fixed-threshold post-clustered bootstrap intervals. Attribution, content and processing differences prevent a causal interpretation of these contrasts. The collection supports analysis of reported model use during a product transition, with source and attribution evidence retained for interpretation.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.15100 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2609.15100v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15100 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
audit-provenance.json
curation-exclusions.jsonl
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 329 words
Related coverage

Presentation: Running AI at the Edge: Running Real Workloads Directly in the Browser
InfoQ · Aug 31, 2026
[AINews] Meta Connect 2026: Muse glasses, voice, video, and Charm
Latent Space · Sep 24, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · Oct 17, 2026