Block-Based Forgery Detection: Performance Comparison Using HOG, LBP, and MBF

Öz

One of the types of forgery performed on digital images is copy and paste forgery (CPS). This type of forgery is realized by pasting another region copied from the same image over the relevant region of the image. It is very important to determine whether there is any forgery on these images, which can be used as evidence in many fields. In this study, an analysis on forgery detection is performed using HOG (Histogram of Oriented Gradients), LBP (Local Binary Patterns), and Multiscale Basic Features (MBF) features for block-based copy-paste forgery detection. The performance of various features alone and in combination is evaluated. Combinations such as HOG+LBP, HOG+MBF and MBF+LBP were tried, but the expected performance improvement was not achieved. Although the performance increase is not very high, the highest results are generally obtained with the LBP+MBF hybrid feature This approach resulted in an F1 score of 88.5%. This study contributes to existing methods in the field of block-based forgery detection and demonstrates the effectiveness of various feature combinations. In addition, although HOG and LBP features are frequently used in block-based approaches, approaches using the MBF feature have not been found in the literature. This study contributes to the existing methods in the field of block-based forgery detection and shows the effectiveness of various features and feature combinations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Copy-move forgery
• HOG
• LBP
• MBF

Proje Numarası

FBA-2024-1004

Kaynakça

1. [1] Niyishaka, P., Bhagvati, C. (2020). Copy-move forgery detection using image blobs and BRISK feature. Multimed. Tools Appl. 10.1007/s11042-020-09225-6.
2. [2] Aydın, Y. (2024). Automated identification of copy‐move forgery using Hessian and patch feature. J. Forensic Sci. 69, 131–138.
3. [3] Sunitha, K., Krishna, A.N., Prasad, B.G. (2022). Copy-move tampering detection using keypoint based hybrid feature extraction and improved transformation model. Appl. Intell., 15405–15416. 10.1007/s10489-022-03207-x.
4. [4] Amerini, I., Ballan, L., Caldelli, R., Del Bimbo, A., Serra, G. (2011). A SIFT-based forensic method for copy-move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 6, 1099–1110. 10.1109/TIFS.2011.2129512.
5. [5] Kumar, N., Meenpal, T. (2022). Salient keypoint-based copy-move image forgery detection. 10.1080/00450618.2021.2016964.
6. [6] Aydin, Y. (2022). Comparison of color features on copy-move forgery detection problem using HSV color space. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. early acce. 10.1080/00450618.2022.2157046.
7. [7] Aydın, Y. (2022). A new Copy-Move forgery detection method using LIOP. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 89, 103661. 10.1016/j.jvcir.2022.103661.
8. [8] Wang, X. yang, Wang, X. qi, Niu, P. pan, Yang, H. ying (2024). Accurate and robust image copy-move forgery detection using adaptive keypoints and FQGPCET-GLCM feature (Springer US) 10.1007/s11042-023-15499-3.

9. [9] Fridrich, J., Soukal, D., Lukáš, J. (2003). Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images. Proc. Digit. Forensic Res. Work., 133–162. 10.1109/ICMLA.2015.137.
10. [10] Ganguly, S., Mandal, S., Malakar, S., Sarkar, R. (2023). Copy-move forgery detection using local tetra pattern based texture descriptor. Multimed. Tools Appl. 82, 19621–19642. 10.1007/s11042-022-14287-9.
11. [11] Shehin, A.U., Sankar, D. (2024). Copy Move Forgery detection and localisation robust to rotation using block based Discrete Cosine Transform and eigenvalues. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 99, 104075. 10.1016/j.jvcir.2024.104075.
12. [12] Weng, S., Zhu, T., Zhang, T., Zhang, C. (2024). UCM-Net: A U-Net-Like Tampered-Region-Related Framework for Copy-Move Forgery Detection. IEEE Trans. Multimed. 26, 750–763. 10.1109/TMM.2023.3270629.
13. [13] Nawaz, M., Mehmood, Z., Nazir, T., Masood, M., Tariq, U., Munshi, A.M., Mehmood, A., Rashid, M. (2021). Image authenticity detection using DWT and circular block-based LTrP features. Comput. Mater. Contin. 69, 1927–1944. 10.3233/JIFS-191700.
14. [14] Aydin, Y. (2023). A Comparative Analysis of Skin Cancer Detection Applications Using Histogram-Based Local Descriptors. Diagnostics 13. 10.3390/diagnostics13193142.
15. [15] Hailing, H., Weiqiang, G., Yu, Z. (2008). Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images using sift algorithm. Proc. - 2008 Pacific-Asia Work. Comput. Intell. Ind. Appl. PACIIA 2008 2, 272–276. 10.1109/PACIIA.2008.240.
16. [16] Raj, R., Joseph, N. (2016). Keypoint Extraction Using SURF Algorithm for CMFD. Procedia Comput. Sci. 93, 375–381. 10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.223.
17. [17] Popescu, A.C., Farid, H. (2004). Exposing Digital Forgeries by Detecting Duplicated Image Regions. Tech. Report, TR2004-515, Dep. Comput. Sci. Dartmouth Coll. Hanover, New Hampsh., 1–11.
18. [18] Li, J., Li, X., Yang, B., Sun, X. (2015). Segmentation-based image copy-move forgery detection scheme. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 10, 507–518. 10.1109/TIFS.2014.2381872.
19. [19] Silva, E., Carvalho, T., Ferreira, A., Rocha, A. (2015). Going deeper into copy-move forgery detection: Exploring image telltales via multi-scale analysis and voting processes. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 29, 16–32. 10.1016/j.jvcir.2015.01.016.
20. [20] Liu, Y., Guan, Q., Zhao, X. (2018). Copy-move forgery detection based on convolutional kernel network. Multimed. Tools Appl. 77, 18269–18293. 10.1007/s11042-017-5374-6.
21. [21] Kumar, S., Mukherjee, S., Pal, A.K. (2023). An improved reduced feature-based copy-move forgery detection technique. Multimed. Tools Appl. 82, 1431–1456. 10.1007/s11042-022-12391-4.