MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385386606 · doi:10.18280/ria.370318

Deep Ensemble Learning for Fake Digital Image Detection: A Convolutional Neural Network-Based Approach

2023· article· en· W4385386606 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gyana Ranjan Panigrah, Prabira Kumar Sethy, Surya Prasada Rao Borra, Nalini Kanta Barpanda, Santi Kumari Behera

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media Forensic Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceEnsemble learningImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of deep learning (DL) technologies has paved the way for a plethora of applications, the creation of hyperrealistic images via generative adversarial networks (GANs) being a compelling example. However, these synthetic images, nearly indistinguishable from genuine ones to the human eye, can be exploited for nefarious activities such as cybercrime, extortion, politically motivated campaigns, propaganda, among others. This paper proposes a deep ensemble learning approach to detect such counterfeit images, aiming to mitigate the issues arising from deepfake multimedia. The impetus for engaging ensemble models stems from their capacity to reduce the generalization error of predictions, provided the foundational models exhibit diversity and independence. Consequently, the prediction error diminishes when an ensemble approach is deployed. In this study, the CASIA v2 benchmark datasets, comprising 12,323 color images (5,123 originals and 7,200 counterfeits), were utilized. This investigation employed an ensemble of 13 pre-trained CNN models. The ensemble technique amalgamates these models to form a comprehensive perceptual model, wherein each model contributes to the final outcome. The classification predictions from each model are considered a 'vote', with the majority verdict serving as the final prediction. The proposed methodology was also juxtaposed with prevailing techniques. Assessment of our approach's efficacy revealed a 100% accuracy rate, 97.75% precision, 87.46% recall, and 99.9% AUC, underscoring the improvement offered by the proposed system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicDigital Media Forensic DetectionFrench-language works237,207