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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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, Smith, Jeff, Fiscus, Jonathan·2019·2019 IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW)
DOI 10.1109/wacvw.2019.00018
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. rossler, 2018, FaceForensics A Large-scale Video Dataset for Forgery Detection in Human Faces
  2. dong, 2013, CASIA image tampering detection evaluation database, in Signal and Information Processing (ChinaSIP), IEEE China Summit & International Conference on, 422
  3. 2015, A Database of Photos of Plants Animals Habitats and Other Natural History Subjects
  4. bansal, 2016, Umdfaces An annotated face dataset for training deep networks
  5. bas, 2011, Break Our Steganographic System, The Ins and Outs of Organizing BOSS INFORMATION HIDING Czech Republic 6958/2011 59-70 Lecture Notes in Computer Science
  6. 0, DARPA MediFor
  7. yates, 2017, Nimble Challenge 2017 Evaluation Plan, NIST
  8. yates, 2018, Media Forensics Challenge 2018 Evaluation Plan, NIST
  9. griffin, 2007, Caltech-256 Object Category Dataset California Institute of Technology
  10. 0, EU project REWIND (REVerse engineering of audio-VIsual coNtent Data)
  11. rocha, 0, The First IFS-TC Image Forensics Challenge
  12. boehme, 2012, Counter-Forensics Attacking Image Forensics Digital Image Forensics, 327
  13. wang, 2018, Video-to-Video Synthesis
  14. lyu, 2012, Natural Image Statistics in Digital Image Forensics, Digital Image Forensics, 239
  15. boylan, 2018, Will Deep-Fake Technology Destroy Democracy?
  16. robertson, 2018, Manual for MaskGen Journaling Tool
  17. schellmann, 2018, Deepfake Videos Are Getting Real and That's a Problem

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–334 of 334

Related

See all

Metadata

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)
ORCID
Venue
2019 IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2019-01
Pages
63-72
DOI
10.1109/wacvw.2019.00018
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
FWCI
7.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
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