PreprintCited by 1Digital Media Forensic DetectionAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

DINOv3 Beats Specialized Detectors: A Simple Foundation Model Baseline for Image Forensics

Open access
Yu, Jieming, Feng, Qiuxiao, Wang, Zhuohan, Ma, Xiaochen·2026·arXiv

Abstract

With the rapid advancement of deep generative models, realistic fake images have become increasingly accessible, yet existing localization methods rely on complex designs and still struggle to generalize across manipulation types and imaging conditions. We present a simple but strong baseline based on DINOv3 with LoRA adaptation and a lightweight convolutional decoder. Under the CAT-Net protocol, our best model improves average pixel-level F1 by 17.0 points over the previous state of the art on four standard benchmarks using only 9.1\,M trainable parameters on top of a frozen ViT-L backbone, and even our smallest variant surpasses all prior specialized methods. LoRA consistently outperforms full fine-tuning across all backbone scales. Under the data-scarce MVSS-Net protocol, LoRA reaches an average F1 of 0.774 versus 0.530 for the strongest prior method, while full fine-tuning becomes highly unstable, suggesting that pre-trained representations encode forensic information that is better preserved than overwritten. The baseline also exhibits strong robustness to Gaussian noise, JPEG re-compression, and Gaussian blur. We hope this work can serve as a reliable baseline for the research community and a practical starting point for future image-forensic applications. Code is available at https://github.com/Irennnne/DINOv3-IML.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2604.16083

Cites

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?

Authors
Yu, J., Feng, Q., Wang, Z., & Ma, X.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7154960552
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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 › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
image forensics, image manipulation localization, DINOv3, LoRA adaptation, foundation models, fake image detection

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