Cited by 334Digital Media Forensic DetectionAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection

MFC Datasets: Large-Scale Benchmark Datasets for Media Forensic Challenge Evaluation

Guan, Haiying, Kozak, Mark, Robertson, Eric, Lee, Yooyoung, Yates, Amy N., Delgado, Andrew, Zhou, Daniel, Kheyrkhah, Timothee +2 more·2019·2019 IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW)

Abstract

We provide a benchmark for digital Media Forensics Challenge (MFC) evaluations. Our comprehensive data comprises over 176,000 high provenance (HP) images and 11,000 HP videos; more than 100,000 manipulated images and 4,000 manipulated videos; 35 million internet images and 300,000 video clips. We have designed and generated a series of development, evaluation, and challenge datasets, and used them to assess the progress and thoroughly analyze the performance of diverse systems on a variety of media forensics tasks in the past two years. In this paper, we first introduce the objectives, challenges, and approaches to building media forensics evaluation datasets. We then discuss our approaches to forensic dataset collection, annotation, and manipulation, and present the design and infrastructure to effectively and efficiently build the evaluation datasets to support various evaluation tasks. Given a specified query, we build an infrastructure that selects the customized evaluation subsets for the targeted analysis report. Finally, we demonstrate the evaluation results in the past evaluations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/wacvw.2019.00018

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Popular face recognition systems based on VGG and Facenet are unable to detect deepfakes effectively.

    “Test results show that the popular face recog- nition systems based on VGG [65] and Facenet [59, 66] are unable to detect deepfakes effectively.”

    From Deep learning for deepfakes creation and detection: A survey (2022) · cites this paper as [59]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guan, H., Kozak, M., Robertson, E., Lee, Y., Yates, A. N., Delgado, A., Zhou, D., Kheyrkhah, T., Smith, J., & Fiscus, J.
Affiliations
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
  • Thermo Fisher Scientific (Israel) (IL)
Venue
2019 IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-01
Pages
63-72
OpenAlex
W2912308702
Cited by
329
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Keywords
multimedia forensics, benchmark dataset, manipulated images, manipulated video, image forgery detection, video manipulation detection, data annotation, dataset collection

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