Author Affiliations
College of Computer Science and Technology, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo, Henan 454003, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Feature matching steps. (a) Initialization; (b) propagation; (c) random search
Fig. 2. Detection results of the algorithm on rotation transform operation. (a) Original image; (b) tampering image (rotation 90°); (c) matching result; (d) detection result
Fig. 3. Detection results of the algorithm on scaling transformation operation. (a) Original image; (b) tampering image (reduced by 80%); (c) matching result; (d) detection result
Fig. 4. Detection results of the algorithm on mirror transformation operation. (a) Original image; (b) mirror image (horizontal); (c) matching result; (d) detection result
Fig. 5. Detection results of the algorithm for multi-region I transform operation. (a) Original image; (b) tampering image; (c) matching result; (d) detection result
Fig. 6. Detection results of the algorithm for multi-region II transform operation. (a) Original image; (b) tampering image; (c) matching result; (d) detection result
Fig. 7. Detection results of the algorithm for multi-region mirroring I transform operation. (a) Original image; (b) tampering image; (c) matching result; (d) detection result
Fig. 8. Detection results of the algorithm for multi-region mirroring II transform operation. (a) Original image; (b) tampering image; (c) matching result; (d) detection result
Parameter | Value | Explanation |
---|
Td | 50 | Minimum distance of tampered area | τ | 360 | Minimum threshold of minimumsquare linear model | Tm | 1000 | Minimum radius of tampered area | ρm | 5 | Radius of median filter | ρe | 8 | Regional radius of minimumsquare linear model |
|
Table 1. Experimental parameters
Algorithm | Rotate90° | Zoom80% | Multi-regionⅠ | Multi-region Ⅱ |
---|
Ref. [4] | 81.34 | 50.14 | 54.15 | 62.12 | Ref. [2] | 79.17 | 84.23 | 79.31 | 84.13 | Ref. [6] | 85.54 | 83.54 | 91.23 | 92.15 | This algorithm | 94.76 | 90.45 | 93.75 | 93.12 |
|
Table 2. F-measure of algorithm detection under different tampering operations%
Algorithm | Rotate | Zoom | Multi-regionⅠ | Multi-regionⅡ |
---|
Ref. [4] | 39.87 | 77.49 | 507.45 | 511.94 | Ref. [2] | 53.91 | 56.84 | 110.67 | 146.78 | Ref. [6] | 34.02 | 43.62 | 303.87 | 297.59 | This algorithm | 27.28 | 33.19 | 72.94 | 81.85 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of average running time of different algorithmss
Algorithm | F-measure | Time /s |
---|
| Mirrorimage /% | Multi mirrorimage /% |
---|
Ref. [11] | 90.62 | 53.46 | 140.43 | Ref. [12] | 84.43 | 72.90 | 165.72 | Ref. [13] | 91.12 | 75.12 | 179.32 | This algorithm | 94.49 | 93.52 | 80.97 |
|
Table 4. Comparison of tampering detection performance of different algorithms under mirror operation