4.5 Article

Forensic image analysis using inconsistent noise pattern

期刊

PATTERN ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 655-667

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10044-020-00930-4

关键词

Digital image forensics; Noise estimation; Post-processing; Detection method; Localization method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the advancement of image acquisition devices and social networking services, the importance of verifying image authenticity has become increasingly prominent. Currently, techniques based on noise inconsistency have become an important method for detecting false images.
With the advancement of image acquisition devices and social networking services, a huge volume of image data is generated. Using different image and video processing applications, these image data are manipulated, and thus, original images get tampered. These tampered images are the prime source of spreading fake news, defaming the personalities and in some cases (when used as evidence) misleading the law bodies. Hence before relying totally on the image data, the authenticity of the image must be verified. Works of the literature are reported for the verification of the authenticity of an image based on noise inconsistency. However, these works suffer from limitations of confusion between edges and noise, post-processing operation for localization and need of prior knowledge about an image. To handle these limitations, a noise inconsistency-based technique has been presented here to detect and localize a false region in an image. This work consists of three major steps of pre-processing, noise estimation and post-processing. For the experimental purpose two, publicly available datasets are used. The result is discussed in terms of precision, recall, accuracy and f1-score on the pixel level. The result of the presented work is also compared with the recent state-of-the-art techniques. The average accuracy of the proposed work on datasets is 91.70%, which is highest among state-of-the-art techniques.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据