Cited by 46Digital Media Forensic DetectionAdvanced Clustering Algorithms ResearchDigital and Cyber Forensics

Large-Scale Image Clustering Based on Camera Fingerprints

Open access
Lin, Xufeng, Li, Chang-Tsun·2016·IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security

Abstract

Practical applications of digital forensics are often faced with the challenge of grouping large-scale suspicious images into a vast number of clusters, each containing images taken by the same camera. This task can be approached by resorting to the use of sensor pattern noise (SPN), which serves as the fingerprint of the camera. The challenges of large-scale image clustering come from the sheer volume of the image set and the high dimensionality of each image. The difficulties can be further aggravated when the number of classes (i.e., the number of cameras) is much higher than the average size of class (i.e., the number of images acquired by each camera). We refer to this as the NC ≫ SC problem, which is not uncommon in many practical scenarios. In this paper, we propose a novel clustering framework that is capable of addressing the NC ≫ SC problem without a training process. The proposed clustering framework was evaluated on the Dresden image database and compared with the state-of-the-art SPN-based image clustering algorithms. Experimental results show that the proposed clustering framework is much faster than the state-of-the-art algorithms while maintaining a high level of clustering quality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tifs.2016.2636086

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Caldelli et al.'s optical flow approach is comparable with state-of-the-art methods in classification accuracy on the FaceForensics++ dataset.

    “The results obtained using the FaceForensics++ dataset [105] show that this approach is comparable with state-of-the-art methods in terms of classification accuracy.”

    From Deep learning for deepfakes creation and detection: A survey (2022) · cites this paper as [105]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, X., & Li, C.-T.
Affiliations
University of Warwick (GB)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security
Published
2016
Pages
1-1
ISSN
  • 1556-6013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-6021
OpenAlex
W2560266592
Cited by
46
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3
FWCI
4.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Clustering Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital and Cyber Forensics
Keywords
image clustering, camera fingerprint, sensor pattern noise, camera identification, digital forensics, unsupervised clustering, high-dimensional data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review