MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shallow- and Deep- fake Image Manipulation Localization Using Deep Learning

2023· article· en· W4360605113 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media Forensic Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceTask (project management)Code (set theory)InferenceImage (mathematics)Computer visionImage manipulationImage editingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forged image localization is an important research task, as such images may have a tremendous impact of various aspects of society. Images can be manipulated using image editing tools (known as “shallowfakes”) or, recently, artificial intelligence techniques (“deepfakes”). While there are many existing works that are designed for manipulated areas localization on either shallow- or deep-fake images, there is no single solution that works for both cases. In this paper, we propose the first solution that can perform the localization task on both shallow- and deep-fake images, with high inference accuracy. The dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/zjbthomas/ShallowDeepFakesLocalization.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Media Forensic DetectionFrench-language works237,207