CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 551Digital Media Forensic DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques

Multi-task Learning For Detecting and Segmenting Manipulated Facial Images and Videos

Open access
Nguyen, Huy H., Fang, Fuming, Yamagishi, Junichi, Echizen, Isao·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1906.06876arXiv 1906.06876
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Detecting manipulated images and videos is an important topic in digital media forensics. Most detection methods use binary classification to determine the probability of a query being manipulated. Another important topic is locating manipulated regions (i.e., performing segmentation), which are mostly created by three commonly used attacks: removal, copy-move, and splicing. We have designed a convolutional neural network that uses the multi-task learning approach to simultaneously detect manipulated images and videos and locate the manipulated regions for each query. Information gained by performing one task is shared with the other task and thereby enhance the performance of both tasks. A semi-supervised learning approach is used to improve the network's generability. The network includes an encoder and a Y-shaped decoder. Activation of the encoded features is used for the binary classification. The output of one branch of the decoder is used for segmenting the manipulated regions while that of the other branch is used for reconstructing the input, which helps improve overall performance. Experiments using the FaceForensics and FaceForensics++ databases demonstrated the network's effectiveness against facial reenactment attacks and face swapping attacks as well as its ability to deal with the mismatch condition for previously seen attacks. Moreover, fine-tuning using just a small amount of data enables the network to deal with unseen attacks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1906.06876

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 35 · Cited by 551

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. [2][2] D. Afchar, V. Nozick, J. Yamagishi, and I. Echizen. MesoNet: a compact facial video forgery detection network. In WIFS . IEEE, 2018. 1, 2 -
  2. [3][3] O. Alexander, M. Rogers, W. Lambeth, J.-Y. Chiang, W.-C. Ma, C.-C. Wang, and P. Debevec. The digital emily project: Achieving a photorealistic digital actor. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications , 30(4):20-31, 2010. 2 -
  3. [4][4] H. Averbuch-Elor, D. Cohen-Or, J. Kopf, and M. F. Cohen. Bringing portraits to life. ACM Transactions on Graphics , 2017. 1, 2 -
  4. [5][5] V. Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, and R. Cipolla. Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 39(12):2481-2495, 2017. 2 -
  5. [6][6] J. H. Bappy, A. K. Roy-Chowdhury, J. Bunk, L. Nataraj, and B. Manjunath. Exploiting spatial structure for localizing manipulated image regions. In ICCV , pages 4970-4979, 2017. 2 -
  6. [7][7] J. H. Bappy, C. Simons, L. Nataraj, B. Manjunath, and A. K. Roy-Chowdhury. Hybrid lstm and encoder-decoder architecture for detection of image forgeries. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 2019. 2, 3 -
  7. [8][8] B. Bayar and M. C. Stamm. A deep learning approach to universal image manipulation detection using a new convolutional layer. In IH&MMSEC . ACM, 2016. 2 -
  8. [9][9] J. S. Chung, A. Jamaludin, and A. Zisserman. You said that? In BMVC , 2017. 1, 2 -
  9. [10][10] D. Cozzolino, G. Poggi, and L. Verdoliva. Recasting residual-based local descriptors as convolutional neural networks: an application to image forgery detection. In IH&MMSec . ACM, 2017. 2 -
  10. [11][11] D. Cozzolino, J. Thies, A. R¨ ossler, C. Riess, M. Nießner, and L. Verdoliva. Forensictransfer: Weakly-supervised domain adaptation for forgery detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.02510 , 2018. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - · arXiv
  11. [12][12] J. Fridrich and J. Kodovsky. Rich models for steganalysis of digital images. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , 2012. 2 -
  12. [13][13] S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In ICML , pages 448-456, 2015. 4 -
  13. [14][14] H. Kim, P. Garrido, A. Tewari, W. Xu, J. Thies, M. Nießner, P. P´ erez, C. Richardt, M. Zollh¨ ofer, and C. Theobalt. Deep video portraits. In SIGGRAPH . ACM, 2018. 1, 2 -
  14. [17][17] Y. Li, M.-C. Chang, and S. Lyu. In ictu oculi: Exposing ai created fake videos by detecting eye blinking. In WIFS , pages 1-7. IEEE, 2018. 1, 2 -
  15. [18][18] J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR , pages 34313440, 2015. 2 -
  16. [19][19] J. Lorenzo-Trueba, J. Yamagishi, T. Toda, D. Saito, F. Villavicencio, T. Kinnunen, and Z. Ling. The voice conversion challenge 2018: Promoting development of parallel and nonparallel methods. In Odyssey 2018 The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop , pages 195-202, 2018. 1, 2 -
  17. [20][20] V. Nair and G. E. Hinton. Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines. In ICML , pages 807-814, 2010. 4 -
  18. [21][21] H. H. Nguyen, T. Tieu, H.-Q. Nguyen-Son, V. Nozick, J. Yamagishi, and I. Echizen. Modular convolutional neural network for discriminating between computer-generated images and photographic images. In ARES , page 1. ACM, 2018. 2 -
  19. [22][22] H. H. Nguyen, J. Yamagishi, and I. Echizen. Capsuleforensics: Using capsule networks to detect forged images and videos. In ICASSP . IEEE, 2019. 2, 3 -
  20. [23][23] W. Quan, K. Wang, D.-M. Yan, and X. Zhang. Distinguishing between natural and computer-generated images using convolutional neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , 2018. 2 -
  21. [24][24] R. Raghavendra, K. B. Raja, S. Venkatesh, and C. Busch. Transferable deep-CNN features for detecting digital and print-scanned morphed face images. In ICCV Workshop . IEEE, 2017. 2 -
  22. [25][25] N. Rahmouni, V. Nozick, J. Yamagishi, and I. Echizen. Distinguishing computer graphics from natural images using convolution neural networks. In WIFS . IEEE, 2017. 1, 2 -
  23. [26][26] A. R¨ ossler, D. Cozzolino, L. Verdoliva, C. Riess, J. Thies, and M. Nießner. Faceforensics: A large-scale video dataset for forgery detection in human faces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09179 , 2018. 1, 2, 4, 5 - · arXiv
  24. [27][27] A. R¨ ossler, D. Cozzolino, L. Verdoliva, C. Riess, J. Thies, and M. Nießner. Faceforensics++: Learning to detect manipulated facial images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08971 , 2019. 1, 4, 5, 6 - · arXiv
  25. [28][28] O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision , 115(3):211-252, 2015. 5 -
  26. [29][29] S. Suwajanakorn, S. M. Seitz, and I. KemelmacherShlizerman. Synthesizing obama: learning lip sync from audio. ACM Transactions on Graphics , 2017. 1, 2 -
  27. [30][30] J. Thies, M. Zollhofer, M. Stamminger, C. Theobalt, and M. Nießner. Face2Face: Real-time face capture and reenactment of RGB videos. In CVPR . IEEE, 2016. 1, 2, 4 -
  28. [31][31] P. Zhou, X. Han, V. I. Morariu, and L. S. Davis. Two-stream neural networks for tampered face detection. In ICCV Workshop . IEEE, 2017. 2 -
  29. [32][32] P. Zhou, X. Han, V. I. Morariu, and L. S. Davis. Learning rich features for image manipulation detection. In CVPR , pages 1053-1061, 2018. 2

Authors
Nguyen, H. H., Fang, F., Yamagishi, J., & Echizen, I.
Affiliations
  • The Graduate University for Advanced Studies, SOKENDAI (JP)
  • National Institute of Informatics (JP)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Pages
1-8
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1906.06876
arXiv
1906.06876
OpenAlex
W3083246145
Cited by
551
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 93 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 6
FWCI
19.90
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JPMJCR18A6, 18H04120, 16H06302)
  • Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (JPMJCR18A6)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Keywords
multi-task learning, image forgery detection, facial image manipulation, semi-supervised learning, encoder-decoder architecture

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