Xingyu Shen

Age estimation systems are increasingly deployed as gatekeepers for age-restricted online content, yet their robustness to cosmetic modifications has not been systematically evaluated. We investigate whether simple, household-accessible cosmetic changes, including beards, grey hair, makeup, and simulated wrinkles, can cause AI age estimators to classify minors as adults. To study this threat at scale without ethical concerns, we simulate these physical attacks on 329 facial images of individuals aged 10 to 21 using a VLM image editor (Gemini 2.5 Flash Image). We then evaluate eight models from our prior benchmark: five specialized architectures (MiVOLO, Custom-Best, Herosan, MiViaLab, DEX) and three vision-language models (Gemini 3 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5-Nano). We introduce the Attack Conversion Rate (ACR), defined as the fraction of images predicted as minor at baseline that flip to adult after attack, a population-agnostic metric that does not depend on the ratio of minors to adults in the test set. Our results reveal that a synthetic beard alone achieves 28 to 69 percent ACR across all eight models; combining all four attacks shifts predicted age by +7.7 years on average across all 329 subjects and reaches up to 83 percent ACR; and vision-language models exhibit lower ACR (59 to 71 percent) than specialized models (63 to 83 percent) under the full attack, although the ACR ranges overlap and the difference is not statistically tested. These findings highlight a critical vulnerability in deployed age-verification pipelines and call for adversarial robustness evaluation as a mandatory criterion for model selection.

As AI-generated images proliferate across digital platforms, reliable detection methods have become critical for combating misinformation and maintaining content authenticity. While numerous deepfake detection methods have been proposed, existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate fine-tuned models, leaving a critical gap in understanding out-of-the-box performance -- the most common deployment scenario for practitioners. We present the first comprehensive zero-shot evaluation of 16 state-of-the-art detection methods, comprising 23 pretrained detector variants (due to multiple released versions of certain detectors), across 12 diverse datasets, comprising 2.6~million image samples spanning 291 unique generators including modern diffusion models. Our systematic analysis reveals striking findings: (1)~no universal winner exists, with detector rankings exhibiting substantial instability (Spearman~$ρ$: 0.01 -- 0.87 across dataset pairs); (2)~a 37~percentage-point performance gap separates the best detector (75.0\% mean accuracy) from the worst (37.5\%); (3)~training data alignment critically impacts generalization, causing up to 20--60\% performance variance within architecturally identical detector families; (4)~modern commercial generators (Flux~Dev, Firefly~v4, Midjourney~v7) defeat most detectors, achieving only 18--30\% average accuracy; and (5)~we identify three systematic failure patterns affecting cross-dataset generalization. Statistical analysis confirms significant performance differences between detectors (Friedman test: $χ^2$=121.01, $p<10^{-16}$, Kendall~$W$=0.524). Our findings challenge the ``one-size-fits-all'' detector paradigm and provide actionable deployment guidelines, demonstrating that practitioners must carefully select detectors based on their specific threat landscape rather than relying on published benchmark performance.