Media Forensics Challenge Image Provenance Evaluation and State-of-the-Art Analysis on Large-Scale Benchmark Datasets

With the development of storage, transmission, editing, and sharing tools, digital forgery images are propagating rapidly. The need for image provenance analysis has never been more timely. Typical applications are content tracking, copyright enforcement, and forensics reasoning. However, large-scale image provenance datasets, which contain diverse manipulation history graphs with various manipulation operations and rich metadata, are still needed to facilitate the research. It is one of the major factors that hinders the development of techniques for image provenance analysis. To address this issue, we introduce large-scale benchmark datasets for provenance analysis, namely Media Forensics Challenge-Provenance (MFC-Prov) datasets. Two provenance tasks are designed along with evaluation metrics. Furthermore, extensive analysis is conducted for system performance in terms of accuracy on our datasets.

[1]  Shih-Fu Chang,et al.  Discovering Image Manipulation History by Pairwise Relation and Forensics Tools , 2020, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing.

[2]  H. Jaap van den Herik,et al.  Semantic annotation of natural history collections , 2019, J. Web Semant..

[3]  Fabrizio Lamberti,et al.  Benchmarking unsupervised near-duplicate image detection , 2019, Expert Syst. Appl..

[4]  Jonathan G. Fiscus,et al.  Manipulation Data Collection and Annotation Tool for Media Forensics , 2019, CVPR Workshops.

[5]  Peter Buneman,et al.  Data Provenance: What next? , 2019, SGMD.

[6]  Jonathan G. Fiscus,et al.  MFC Datasets: Large-Scale Benchmark Datasets for Media Forensic Challenge Evaluation , 2019, 2019 IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW).

[7]  Anderson Rocha,et al.  Beyond Pixels: Image Provenance Analysis Leveraging Metadata , 2018, 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV).

[8]  Fang Huang,et al.  Hierarchical one permutation hashing: efficient multimedia near duplicate detection , 2018, Multimedia Tools and Applications.

[9]  Andrew Owens,et al.  Fighting Fake News: Image Splice Detection via Learned Self-Consistency , 2018, ECCV.

[10]  Andreas Rössler,et al.  FaceForensics: A Large-scale Video Dataset for Forgery Detection in Human Faces , 2018, ArXiv.

[11]  Patrick J. Flynn,et al.  Image Provenance Analysis at Scale , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[12]  Jaakko Lehtinen,et al.  Progressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variation , 2017, ICLR.

[13]  Can Chen,et al.  Image Splicing Detection via Camera Response Function Analysis , 2017, 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[14]  Anderson Rocha,et al.  Provenance filtering for multimedia phylogeny , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[15]  Anderson Rocha,et al.  U-Phylogeny: Undirected provenance graph construction in the wild , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[16]  Paolo Bestagini,et al.  Spotting the difference: Context retrieval and analysis for improved forgery detection and localization , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[17]  Venkatesh Radhakrishnan,et al.  Provenance-Aware Query Optimization , 2017, 2017 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE).

[18]  Carlos D. Castillo,et al.  UMDFaces: An annotated face dataset for training deep networks , 2016, 2017 IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB).

[19]  H. Farid How to Detect Faked Photos , 2017 .

[20]  Andreas Haeberlen,et al.  Data Provenance at Internet Scale: Architecture, Experiences, and the Road Ahead , 2017, CIDR.

[21]  Mauro Barni,et al.  Multiple Parenting Phylogeny Relationships in Digital Images , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[22]  Alessandro Piva,et al.  Image splicing detection based on general perspective constraints , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS).

[23]  Davide Cozzolino,et al.  Splicebuster: A new blind image splicing detector , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS).

[24]  Mathieu Aubry,et al.  Understanding Deep Features with Computer-Generated Imagery , 2015, ICCV.

[25]  Alex ChiChung Kot,et al.  Blurred Image Splicing Localization by Exposing Blur Type Inconsistency , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[26]  S. Goldenstein,et al.  Toward image phylogeny forests: automatically recovering semantically similar image relationships. , 2013, Forensic science international.

[27]  Jing Dong,et al.  CASIA Image Tampering Detection Evaluation Database , 2013, 2013 IEEE China Summit and International Conference on Signal and Information Processing.

[28]  James J. Filliben,et al.  Sensitivity analysis for biometric systems: A methodology based on orthogonal experiment designs , 2012, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[29]  Christian Riess,et al.  Ieee Transactions on Information Forensics and Security an Evaluation of Popular Copy-move Forgery Detection Approaches , 2022 .

[30]  Anderson Rocha,et al.  Image Phylogeny by Minimal Spanning Trees , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[31]  Anderson Rocha,et al.  Vision of the unseen: Current trends and challenges in digital image and video forensics , 2011, CSUR.

[32]  Alberto Del Bimbo,et al.  Ieee Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 1 a Sift-based Forensic Method for Copy-move Attack Detection and Transformation Recovery , 2022 .

[33]  Anderson Rocha,et al.  First steps toward image phylogeny , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security.

[34]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Web graph similarity for anomaly detection , 2010, Journal of Internet Services and Applications.

[35]  Shih-Fu Chang,et al.  A Data Set of Authentic and Spliced Image Blocks , 2004 .