2690-6791ISSN (Online)
2769-786XISSN (Print)
Volume 12 , Issue 2 , PP: 166-177, 2024 | Cite this article as | XML | Html | PDF | Full Length Article
Ahmed K. Jawad Alataby 1 *
Doi: https://doi.org/10.54216/JISIoT.120212
Digital picture fraud detection is an increasing societal necessity due to the importance of verified images. The detection of picture copying, splicing, retouching, and re-sampling forgeries is included. In the absence of digital signatures or watermarks, passive picture authentication may serve as an alternative to active authentication. Passive techniques, every so often recognized as blind techniques, could take place without preceding knowledge of the picture or its reference. Identifying counterfeiting picture or tampering was a research field for long a period of time, triggered via the Internet, online platforms, social messaging platforms, and extensive digital image usage. The rate of failure could be a key factor for examining the alteration of picture or forgery, among other existing methods. The research applies almost six common algorithms related to machine learning in order to extract features from Lightweight, Spatial Exploitation, and Residual deep learning models on benchmark datasets MICC-F220, Columbia, and CoMoFoD. The models of incorporated deep learning could consist of AlexNet, GoogleNet, VGG16, VGG19, SqueezeNet, MobileNetV2, ShuffleNet, ResNet-18, ResNet-50, and ResNet-101 for spatial exploitation. Fine-tuning is applied to the top three deep learning models, optimizing hyperparameters centered on indicators of performance for every single benchmark dataset. Tweaked SqueezeNet, MobileNetV2, and ShuffleNet deep learning models with SGDM Optimizer and SVM classifier yielded the best results for MICC-F220 dataset. Fine-tuned VGG19, MobileNetV2, and ResNet-50 deep learning models with SGDM Optimizer and SVM v classifier yielded the best results for Columbia dataset. In CoMoFoD dataset, fine-tuned AlexNet, MobileNetV2, and ShuffleNet deep learning models with SGDM Optimizer and SVM classifier yielded the best results. The proposed approach, utilizing machine learning algorithms and deep learning features, enhanced forgery detection and reduced false positives. Results were validated on benchmark image forgery datasets and compared to current methods.
Digital picture fraud detection , Picture forgery detection , Passive picture authentication , Machine learning algorithms , Deep learning models , Forgery detection accuracy , Image tampering detection , Benchmark datasets
[1] Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, Del Bimbo A, Serra G. A sift-based forensic method for copy–move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 2011;6:1099–110.
[2] Al-Qershi OM, Khoo BE. Passive detection of copy-move forgery in digital images: State-of-the-art. Forensic Science International 2013;231:284–95.
[3] Birajdar GK, Mankar VH. Digital image forgery detection using passive techniques: A survey. Digital Investigation 2013;10:226–45.
[4] Walia S, Kumar K. Digital image forgery detection: a systematic scrutiny. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 2019;51:488–526.
[5] Kee E, O’Brien JF, Farid H. Exposing photo manipulation with inconsistent shadows. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 2013;32:1–12.
[6] Kee E, O’brien JF, Farid H. Exposing Photo Manipulation from Shading and Shadows. ACM Trans Graph 2014;33:161–5.
[7] Sridhar S. Image features representation and description. Digital Image Processing 2011:483–6.
[8] Chauhan D, Kasat D, Jain S, Thakare V. Survey on keypoint based copy-move forgery detection methods on image. Procedia Computer Science 2016;85:206–12.
[9] Warshine Barry. (2023). Designing a Computer Simulation Model to Study the Failure Mechanism in Rotating Shaft. Galoitica: Journal of Mathematical Structures and Applications, 9 ( 2 ), 08-14 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/GJMSA.090201) .
[10] Le-Tien T, Phan-Xuan H, Nguyen-Chinh T, Do-Tieu T. Image forgery detection: A low computational-cost and effective data-driven model. International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing 2019;9.
[11] Choi H-Y, Jang H-U, Kim D, Son J, Mun S-M, Choi S, et al. Detecting composite image manipulation based on deep neural networks. 2017 international conference on systems, signals and image processing (IWSSIP), IEEE; 2017, p. 1–5.
[12] Chen J, Kang X, Liu Y, Wang ZJ. Median filtering forensics based on convolutional neural networks. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 2015;22:1849–53.
[13] Barbara Charchekhandra. (2023). Align and fusion two thermal and visual images. Pure Mathematics for Theoretical Computer Science, 1 ( 1 ), 17-31 (Doi : https://doi.org/10.54216/PMTCS.010102)
[14] Bilal M, Habib HA, Mehmood Z, Yousaf RM, Saba T, Rehman A. A robust technique for copy-move forgery detection from small and extremely smooth tampered regions based on the DHE-SURF features and mDBSCAN clustering. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 2021;53:459–82.
[15] Teerakanok S, Uehara T. Copy-move forgery detection: A state-of-the-art technical review and analysis. IEEE Access 2019;7:40550–68.
