MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386091953 · doi:10.3390/a16090399

Detecting Image Forgery over Social Media Using U-NET with Grasshopper Optimization

2023· article· en· W4386091953 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media Forensic Detection
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceElastic net regularizationF1 scoreSegmentationConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningFeature selection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, video and digital images possess extensive utility, ranging from recreational and social media purposes to verification, military operations, legal proceedings, and penalization. The enhancement mechanisms of this medium have undergone significant advancements, rendering them more accessible and widely available to a larger population. Consequently, this has facilitated the ease with which counterfeiters can manipulate images. Convolutional neural network (CNN)-based feature extraction and detection techniques were used to carry out this task, which aims to identify the variations in image features between modified and non-manipulated areas. However, the effectiveness of the existing detection methods could be more efficient. The contributions of this paper include the introduction of a segmentation method to identify the forgery region in images with the U-Net model’s improved structure. The suggested model connects the encoder and decoder pipeline by improving the convolution module and increasing the set of weights in the U-Net contraction and expansion path. In addition, the parameters of the U-Net network are optimized by using the grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA). Experiments were carried out on the publicly accessible image tempering detection evaluation dataset from the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Automation (CASIA) to assess the efficacy of the suggested strategy. The results show that the U-Net modifications significantly improve the overall segmentation results compared to other models. The effectiveness of this method was evaluated on CASIA, and the quantitative results obtained based on accuracy, precision, recall, and the F1 score demonstrate the superiority of the U-Net modifications over other models.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.227 · 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