Digital image source coder forensics via intrinsic fingerprints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent development in multimedia processing and network technologies has facilitated the distribution and sharing of multimedia through networks, and increased the security demands of multimedia contents. Traditional image content protection schemes use extrinsic approaches, such as watermarking or fingerprinting. However, under many circumstances, extrinsic content protection is not possible. Therefore, there is great interest in developing forensic tools via intrinsic fingerprints to solve these problems. Source coding is a common step of natural image acquisition, so in this paper, we focus on the fundamental research on digital image source coder forensics via intrinsic fingerprints. First, we investigate the unique intrinsic fingerprint of many popular image source encoders, including transform-based coding (both discrete cosine transform and discrete wavelet transform based), subband coding, differential image coding, and also block processing as the traces of evidence. Based on the intrinsic fingerprint of image source encoders, we construct an image source coding forensic detector that identifies which source encoder is applied, what the coding parameters are along with confidence measures of the result. Our simulation results show that the proposed system provides trustworthy performance: for most test cases, the probability of detecting the correct source encoder is over 90%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".