A New Benchmark and Model for Challenging Image Manipulation Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to detect manipulation in multimedia data is vital in digital forensics. Existing Image Manipulation Detection (IMD) methods are mainly based on detecting anomalous features arisen from image editing or double compression artifacts. All existing IMD techniques encounter challenges when it comes to detecting small tampered regions from a large image. Moreover, compression-based IMD approaches face difficulties in cases of double compression of identical quality factors. To investigate the State-of-The-Art (SoTA) IMD methods in those challenging conditions, we introduce a new Challenging Image Manipulation Detection (CIMD) benchmark dataset, which consists of two subsets, for evaluating editing-based and compression-based IMD methods, respectively. The dataset images were manually taken and tampered with high-quality annotations. In addition, we propose a new two-branch network model based on HRNet that can better detect both the image-editing and compression artifacts in those challenging conditions. Extensive experiments on the CIMD benchmark show that our model significantly outperforms SoTA IMD methods on CIMD. The dataset is available at: https://github.com/ZhenfeiZ/CIMD.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".