Chulin Zhao | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

When Composition Doesn't Add Up: Humans Identifying Defects in AI-Generated Images

*Chulin Zhao and Ruoqi Hu contributed equally to this work. State-of-the-art text-to-image (T2I) models exhibit pronounced and systematic defects when prompts involve intricate compositional factors such as multiple entities and multiple attributes. In this paper, we investigate how humans identify such defects. Specifically, we manually select 651 reference images from the four categories of people, hand, object, and scene that exhibit complex compositional characteristics, from which prompts emphasizing compositional factors are derived by manually editing ChatGPT-generated prompts. We then feed the prompts into three selected T2I models to generate AI images and conduct a comprehensive subjective study to identify their defects. For each image, 29 participants provide multi-label assessments specifying defect types and locations. The study yields the compositional AI-generated image defect (CO-AID) dataset, including reference images, prompts, AI-generated images, and information on defect locations and types. Experimental results show that training a deep model on CO-AID can both predict defects in AI-generated images and optimize AI image generation, demonstrating its usability and effectiveness. The database and supplementary materials are available at: https://github.com/Future-IQA/CO-AID .

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Posterior Variance Is a Constraint Map, Not an Error Map: Closed-Form Uncertainty for Radiative Gaussian Splatting in Sparse-View CT

Radiative Gaussian splatting reconstructs sparse-view CT fast and accurately, and recent work attaches per-Gaussian posteriors to yield per-voxel uncertainty maps. We ask what such a map actually measures: posterior variance is a data-constraint map, not an error map -- its alarms are trustworthy, its all-clears are not. Exploiting the strict linearity of X-ray rendering in the per-Gaussian densities, we derive a clamp-aware closed form that the unchanged rasterizer evaluates exactly in one forward pass, in volume and projection space: the infinite-sample limit of the sampling estimator of concurrent work, at ~8x lower cost. On the official 15-scene benchmark this uncertainty ranks true error on 14 of 15 scenes. Restricted to the object interior -- the tissue a clinician reads -- the ranking collapses (median Spearman 0.11, 0/15 pass), identically for a deep ensemble and for a strictly positive log-normal posterior: three constructions, two estimator families, no survivors. The mechanism is structural: about 90% of in-object error is bias that reproduces across retrainings, invisible to model disagreement; 73-81% of the full-volume correlation is carried by object/surround contrast; and an exactly solvable control puts the observed in-object ranking 4-5x below what a perfectly calibrated posterior with the same sigma-spread would score. The error scale, by contrast, is an engineering problem, and we solve it: reparameterizing the posterior contracts the cross-scene temperature spread from 19.3x to 2.6x, one scene-agnostic temperature transfers to unseen scenes (10/15 leave-one-scene-out), and the repaired scale tracks photon count at the Poisson-predicted -1/2 power. We distill evaluation practice that would have caught the illusion -- masked calibration, seed-wise bias decomposition, an exact-posterior reference -- and release all protocols, seeds and per-run evidence.

cs.CV↗