Applied Intelligence

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 347–361 | Cite as

Image-format-independent tampered image detection based on overlapping concurrent directional patterns and neural networks

Article

Abstract

With the advancement of photo editing software, digital documents can easily be altered, which causes some legal issues. This paper proposes an image authentication method, which determines whether an image is authentic. Unlike many existing methods that only work with images in the JPEG format, the proposed method is image format independent, implying that it works with both noncompressed images and images in all compression formats. To improve the authentication accuracy, some strategies, such as overlapping image blocks only on concurrent directions, using a two-scale local binary pattern operator, and choosing the mean deviation instead of the standard deviation, are applied. A back-propagation neural network (BPNN) is used instead of support vector machines (SVMs) for classification to make online learning easier and achieve higher accuracy. In our experiments, we used the CASIA Database (CASIA TIDE v1.0) of compressed images and the Columbia University Digital Video Multimedia (DVMM) dataset of uncompressed images to evaluate our image authentication method. This benchmark dataset includes two types of image tampering, namely image splicing and copy–move forgery. Experiments were performed using both the SVM and BPNN classifiers with various parameters. We determined that the BPNN achieved a higher accuracy of up to 97.26 %.

Keywords

Digital image forensics Digital image authentication Tampered image detection Artificial neural network 

References

  1. 1.
    Wang Z, Bovik A C, Evan B (2000) Blind measurement of blocking artifacts in images. Proceedings of Image Processing 3:981–984Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin C Y, Chang S F (2001) A robust image authentication method distinguishing JPEG compression from malicious manipulation. IEEE Trans on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 11:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farid H (2009) Exposing Digital Forgeries from JPEG Ghosts. IEEE Trans on Information Forensics and Security 4(1):154–160MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmadi A A A (2014) Image forgery detection exploiting image randomness report, King Saud UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moniruzzaman M, Hawlader M A K, Hossain M F (2014) An image fragile watermarking scheme based on chaotic system for image tamper detection. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Informatics, Electronics & VisionGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muhammad G, Al-Hammadi M H, Hussain M, Bebis G (985) Image forgery detection using steerable pyramid transform and local binary pattern. Mach Vis Appl 25(4)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang J, Liu G, Xu B, Li H, Dai Y, Wang Z (2010) Image Forgery Forensics Based on Manual Blurred Edge Detection. In: Proceedings of Multimedia Information Networking and Security, pp 907–911Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bahrami K, Kot A C, Leida L, Haoliang L (2015) Blurred Image Splicing Localization by Exposing Blur Type Inconsistency. IEEE Trans on Information Forensics and Security 10(5):999– 1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gregor Z, Braun T, Berns K (2012) Local binary pattern based texture analysis in real time using a graphics processing unit. VDIBERICHT:321Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alahmadi A A, Hussain M, Aboalsamh H, Muhammad G, Bebis G (2013) Splicing image forgery detection based on DCT and Local Binary Pattern, pp 253–256Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang W, Dong J, Tan T (2101) Image tampering detection based on stationary distribution of Markov chain. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Image ProcessingGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muhammad G, Al-Hammadi M H, Hussain M, Mirza A M, Bebis G (2013) Copy move image forgery detection method using teerable pyramid transform and texture descriptor. In: Proceedings of IEEE EUROCON, pp 1586–1592Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saleh S Q, Hussain M, Muhammad G, Bebis G (2013) Evaluation of image forgery detection using multi-scale weber local descriptors. In: Proceedings International Symposium on Advances in Visual Computing, pp 416–424Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    (2016) CASIA Tampered Image Detection Evaluation Database (CASIA TIDE v2.0) Available: http://forensics.idealtest.org
  15. 15.
    (2016) Columbia Image Splicing Detection Evaluation Dataset. Available: http://www.ee.columbia.edu/ln/dvmm/downloads/AuthSplicedDataSet/AuthSplicedDataSet.htm
  16. 16.
    Ahmed N, Natarajan T, Rao K R (Unknown Month 90) Discrete cosine transform. IEEE Trans Comput 100Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang Y, Zhao C, Pi Y, Li S (2012) Revealing image splicing forgery using local binary patterns of DCT coefficients. In: Proceedings International Conference on Communications, Signal Processing, and Systems, pp 181–189Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ahonen T, Hadid A, Pietikainen M (2006) Face Description with Local Binary Patterns: Application to Face Recognition. IEEE Trans on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 28(12):2037–2041CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ojala T, Pietikainen M, Maenpaa T (2002) Multiresolution gray-scale and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns. IEEE Trans on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 24(7):971–987CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Center for Machine Vision Research (CMV) (2015) Available: http://www.cse.oulu.fi/CMV
  21. 21.
    Williams D, Hinton G (1986) Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 323:533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Negnevitsky M (2005) Artificial intelligence: a guide to intelligent systems, 2nd Edn. Pearson EducationGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten I H (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter 11(1):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dong J, Wang W, Tang T (2013) CASIA Image Tampering Detection Evaluation Database. In: Proceedings of Intl Conf on Signal and Information Processing, pp 422–426Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhao X, Li J, Li S, Wang S (2011) Detecting digital image splicing in chroma spaces. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Digital Watermarking, pp 12–22Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Al-Hammadi M H, Muhammad G, Hussain M, Bebis G (2013) Curvelet transform and local texture based image forgery detection. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Advances in Visual Computing, pp 503–512Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information EngineeringNational Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipeiRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations