A semi-feature learning approach for tampered region localization across multi-format images

Article
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

In multimedia security, it is an important task to localize the tampered image regions. In this work, deep learning is used to solve this problem and the approach can be applied to multi-format images. Concretely, we use Stack Autoencoder to obtain the tampered image block features so that the forgery can be identified in a semi-automatic manner. Contextual information of image block is further integrated to improve the localization accuracy. The approach is tested on a benchmark dataset, with a 92.84% localization accuracy and a 0.9375 Area Under Curve (AUC) score. Compared to the state-of-the-art solutions for multi-format images, our solution has an over 40% AUC improvement and 5.7 times F1 improvement. The results also out-perform several approaches which are designed specifically for JPEG images by 41.12%∼63.08% in AUC and with a 4∼8 times better F1.

Keywords

Multimedia forensics Image tampering detection Image contents verification Image forgery Deep learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based on research work supported by the Singapore National Research Foundation under NCR Award No. NRF2014NCR-NCR001-034.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Bayram S, Sencar HT, Memon N (2008) Classification of digital camera-models based on demosaicing artifacts. Digit Investig 5(1–2):49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bengio Y (2009) Learning deep architectures for ai. Foundations and trendsⓇ, in Machine Learning 2(1):1–127CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bengio Y, Lamblin P, Popovici D, Larochelle H et al. (2007) Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. Adv. Neural Inf Proces Syst 19:153Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bianchi T, Piva A (2012) Image forgery localization via block-grained analysis of jpeg artifacts. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7(3):1003–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bianchi T, De Rosa A, Piva A (2011) Improved dct coefficient analysis for forgery localization in jpeg images. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, pp 2444–2447Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Birajdar GK, Mankar VH (2013) Digital image forgery detection using passive techniques: A survey. Digit Investig 10(3):226–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chengjie T u, Tran TD (2002) Context-based entropy coding of block transform coefficients for image compression. IEEE Trans Image Process 11(11):1271–1283MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chierchia G, Cozzolino D, Poggi G, Sansone C, Verdoliva L (2014) Guided filtering for prnu-based localization of small-size image forgeries. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, pp 6231–6235Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cozzolino D, Gragnaniello D, Verdoliva L (2013) A novel framework for image forgery localization. arXiv:1311.6932
  11. 11.
    Dong J, Wang W (2011) Casia tampering detection dataset http://forensics.idealtest.org/
  12. 12.
    Farid H, Lyu S (2003) Higher-order wavelet statistics and their application to digital forensics. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition workshop, vol 8, pp 94–94Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Felzenszwalb PF, Huttenlocher DP (2004) Efficient graph-based image segmentation. Int J Comput Vis 59(2):167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferrara P, Bianchi T, De Rosa A, Piva A (2012) Image forgery localization via fine-grained analysis of cfa artifacts. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7(5):1566–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gaborini L, Bestagini P, Milani S, Tagliasacchi M, Tubaro S (2014) Multi-clue image tampering localization. In: IEEE international workshop on information forensics and security, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galvan F, Puglisi G, Bruna AR, Battiato S (2014) First quantization matrix estimation from double compressed jpeg images. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 9(8):1299–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gupta Dipalee, Choubey Siddhartha (2015) Discrete wavelet transform for image processing. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering 4(3):598–602Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hinton GE, Salakhutdinov RR (2006) Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science 313(5786):504–507MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Johnson MK, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting. In: Proceedings of the 7th workshop on multimedia and security, ACM, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kakar P, Sudha N, Ser W (2011) Exposing digital image forgeries by detecting discrepancies in motion blur. IEEE Trans Multimedia 13(3):443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ke Y, Zhang Q, Min W, Zhang S (2014) Detecting image forgery based on noise estimation. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering 9(1):325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kociołek M, Materka A, Strzelecki M, Szczypiński P (2001) Discrete wavelet transform-derived features for digital image texture analysis. In: International conference on signals and electronic systems, Łódź-Poland, pp 99–104Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 1097–1105Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lin Z, He J, Tang X, Tang C-K (2009) Fast, automatic and fine-grained tampered jpeg image detection via dct coefficient analysis. Pattern Recogn 42(11):2492–2501CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lukáš J, Fridrich J (2003) Estimation of primary quantization matrix in double compressed jpeg images. In: Digital forensic research workshop, pp 5–8Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lukáš J, Fridrich J, Goljan M (2006) Detecting digital image forgeries using sensor pattern noise. In: Electronic imaging, pp 60720Y–60720YGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mobahi H, Rao SR, Yang AY, Sastry SS, Ma Y (2011) Segmentation of natural images by texture and boundary compression. Int J Comput Vis 95(1):86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mori G (2005) Guiding model search using segmentation. In: IEEE international conference on computer vision, IEEE, vol 2, pp 1417–1423Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ngiam J, Coates A, Lahiri A, Prochnow B, Le Quoc V, Ng AY (2011) On optimization methods for deep learning. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11), pp 265–272Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Piva A (2013) An overview on image forensics. ISRN Signal Processing 2013Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Redi JA, Taktak W, Dugelay J-L (2011) Digital image forensics: a booklet for beginners. Multimedia Tools and Applications 51(1):133–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saravanan N, Ramachandran KI (2010) Incipient gear box fault diagnosis using discrete wavelet transform (dwt) for feature extraction and classification using artificial neural network (ann). Expert Systems with Applications 37(6):4168–4181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Satiyan M, Hariharan M, Nagarajan R (2010) Comparison of performance using daubechies wavelet family for facial expression recognition. In: 2010 6th international colloquium on signal processing its applications, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shi J, Malik J (2000) Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(8):888–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Simoncelli EP (1999) Modeling the joint statistics of images in the wavelet domain. In: SPIE’s international symposium on optical science, engineering, and instrumentation, pp 188–195. International Society for Optics and PhotonicsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taigman Y, Yang M, Marc’Aurelio R, Wolf L (2014) Deepface: Closing the gap to human-level performance in face verification. In: IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 1701–1708Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thing VLL, Chen Y, Cheh C (2012) An improved double compression detection method for jpeg image forensics. In: IEEE international symposium on multimedia, pp 290–297Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tralic D, Grgic S, Sun X, Rosin PL (2016) Combining cellular automata and local binary patterns for copy-move forgery detection. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75(24):16881–16903CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Verdoliva L, Cozzolino D, Poggi G (2014) A feature-based approach for image tampering detection and localization. In: IEEE international workshop on information forensics and security, pp 149–154Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yang Q, Peng F, Li J-T, Long M (2016) Image tamper detection based on noise estimation and lacunarity texture. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75 (17):10201–10211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ye S, Sun Q, Chang EC (2007) Detecting digital image forgeries by measuring inconsistencies of blocking artifact. In: International conference on multimedia and expo, pp 12–15Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ye Z, Shen X, Chen H (2016) Copy-move forgery detection based on scaled orb. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75(6):3221–3233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu L, Qi H, Niu X (2016) Feature point-based copy-move forgery detection: covering the non-textured areas. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75(2):1159–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang Y, Goh J, Win LL, Thing V (2016) Image region forgery detection: A deep learning approach. In: Proceedings of the Singapore cyber-security conference: cyber-security by design, vol 14, p 1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cyber Security ClusterInstitute for Infocomm ResearchSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations