skip to main content
10.1145/3123266.3123411acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Deep Matching and Validation Network: An End-to-End Solution to Constrained Image Splicing Localization and Detection

Authors Info & Claims
Published:19 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Image splicing is a very common image manipulation technique that is sometimes used for malicious purposes. A splicing detection and localization algorithm usually takes an input image and produces a binary decision indicating whether the input image has been manipulated, and also a segmentation mask that corresponds to the spliced region. Most existing splicing detection and localization pipelines suffer from two main shortcomings: 1) they use handcrafted features that are not robust against subsequent processing (e.g., compression), and 2) each stage of the pipeline is usually optimized independently. In this paper we extend the formulation of the underlying splicing problem to consider two input images, a query image and a potential donor image. Here the task is to estimate the probability that the donor image has been used to splice the query image, and obtain the splicing masks for both the query and donor images. We introduce a novel deep convolutional neural network architecture, called Deep Matching and Validation Network (DMVN), which simultaneously localizes and detects image splicing. The proposed approach does not depend on handcrafted features and uses raw input images to create deep learned representations. Furthermore, the DMVN is end-to-end optimized to produce the probability estimates and the segmentation masks. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that this approach outperforms state-of-the-art splicing detection methods by a large margin in terms of both AUC score and speed.

References

  1. Irene Amerini, Lamberto Ballan, Roberto Caldelli, Alberto Del Bimbo, and Giuseppe Serra. 2011. A sift-based forensic method for copy--move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 6, 3 (2011), 1099--1110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Irene Amerini, Rudy Becarelli, Roberto Caldelli, and Andrea Del Mastio. 2014. Splicing forgeries localization through the use of first digit features Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), 2014 IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 143--148.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Edoardo Ardizzone, Alessandro Bruno, and Giuseppe Mazzola. 2015. Copy--move forgery detection by matching triangles of keypoints. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 10, 10 (2015), 2084--2094.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Khurshid Asghar, Zulfiqar Habib, and Muhammad Hussain. 2016. Copy-move and splicing image forgery detection and localization techniques: a review. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences (2016), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Mauro Barni, Marco Fontani, and Benedetta Tondi. 2012. A universal technique to hide traces of histogram-based image manipulations Proceedings of the on Multimedia and security. ACM, 97--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Tiziano Bianchi and Alessandro Piva. 2012. Image forgery localization via block-grained analysis of JPEG artifacts. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 7, 3 (2012), 1003--1017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Gajanan K Birajdar and Vijay H Mankar. 2013. Digital image forgery detection using passive techniques: A survey. Digital Investigation Vol. 10, 3 (2013), 226--245. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Mo Chen, Jessica Fridrich, Miroslav Goljan, and Jan Lukás. 2008. Determining image origin and integrity using sensor noise. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 3, 1 (2008), 74--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Yi-Lei Chen and Chiou-Ting Hsu. 2011. Detecting recompression of JPEG images via periodicity analysis of compression artifacts for tampering detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 6, 2 (2011), 396--406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Vincent Christlein, Christian Riess, Johannes Jordan, Corinna Riess, and Elli Angelopoulou. 2012. An evaluation of popular copy-move forgery detection approaches. IEEE Transactions on information forensics and security, Vol. 7, 6 (2012), 1841--1854. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Davide Cozzolino, Giovanni Poggi, and Luisa Verdoliva. 2015 a. Efficient dense-field copy--move forgery detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 10, 11 (2015), 2284--2297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Davide Cozzolino, Giovanni Poggi, and Luisa Verdoliva. 2015 b. Splicebuster: A new blind image splicing detector. Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), 2015 IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Davide Cozzolino, Giovanni Poggi, and Luisa Verdoliva. 2017. Recasting Residual-based Local Descriptors as Convolutional Neural Networks: an Application to Image Forgery Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04615 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Davide Cozzolino and Luisa Verdoliva. 2016. Single-image splicing localization through autoencoder-based anomaly detection Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), 2016 IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Alberto A de Oliveira, Pasquale Ferrara, Alessia De Rosa, Alessandro Piva, Mauro Barni, Siome Goldenstein, Zanoni Dias, and Anderson Rocha. 2016. Multiple parenting phylogeny relationships in digital images. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 11, 2 (2016), 328--343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Zanoni Dias, Siome Goldenstein, and Anderson Rocha. 2013. Large-scale image phylogeny: Tracing image ancestral relationships. Ieee Multimedia, Vol. 20, 3 (2013), 58--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Zanoni Dias, Anderson Rocha, and Siome Goldenstein. 2012. Image phylogeny by minimal spanning trees. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 7, 2 (2012), 774--788. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Zhen Fang, Shuozhong Wang, and Xinpeng Zhang. 2010. Image splicing detection using color edge inconsistency Multimedia Information Networking and Security (MINES), 2010 International Conference on. IEEE, 923--926. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hany Farid. 2009. Image forgery detection. IEEE Signal processing magazine Vol. 26, 2 (2009), 16--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03385 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Yu-Feng Hsu and Shih-Fu Chang. 2006. Detecting image splicing using geometry invariants and camera characteristics consistency. IEEE, 549--552.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ce Li, Qiang Ma, Limei Xiao, Ming Li, and Aihua Zhang. 2017 b. Image splicing detection based on Markov features in QDCT domain. Neurocomputing Vol. 228 (2017), 29--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Haodong Li, Weiqi Luo, Xiaoqing Qiu, and Jiwu Huang. 2017 a. Image Forgery Localization via Integrating Tampering Possibility Maps. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 12, 5 (2017), 1240--1252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jian Li, Xiaolong Li, Bin Yang, and Xingming Sun. 2015. Segmentation-based image copy-move forgery detection scheme. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 10, 3 (2015), 507--518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 740--755.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Qingzhong Liu and Zhongxue Chen. 2014. Improved Approaches with Calibrated Neighboring Joint Density to Steganalysis and Seam-Carved Forgery Detection in JPEG Images. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. Vol. 5, 4, Article no63 (Dec.. 2014), pages 30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Deep Matching and Validation Network: An End-to-End Solution to Constrained Image Splicing Localization and Detection

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            MM '17: Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia
            October 2017
            2028 pages
            ISBN:9781450349062
            DOI:10.1145/3123266

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 19 October 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            MM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate189of684submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate995of4,171submissions,24%

            Upcoming Conference

            MM '24
            MM '24: The 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia
            October 28 - November 1, 2024
            Melbourne , VIC , Australia

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader