Copy-Move Forgery Detection and Localization Using a Generative Adversarial Network and Convolutional Neural-Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of forged images has become a global phenomenon that is spreading mainly through social media. New technologies have provided both the means and the support for this phenomenon, but they are also enabling a targeted response to overcome it. Deep convolution learning algorithms are one such solution. These have been shown to be highly effective in dealing with image forgery derived from generative adversarial networks (GANs). In this type of algorithm, the image is altered such that it appears identical to the original image and is nearly undetectable to the unaided human eye as a forgery. The present paper investigates copy-move forgery detection using a fusion processing model comprising a deep convolutional model and an adversarial model. Four datasets are used. Our results indicate a significantly high detection accuracy performance (~95%) exhibited by the deep learning CNN and discriminator forgery detectors. Consequently, an end-to-end trainable deep neural network approach to forgery detection appears to be the optimal strategy. The network is developed based on two-branch architecture and a fusion module. The two branches are used to localize and identify copy-move forgery regions through CNN and GAN.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".