Forensic Technique for Forgery Detection and Localization in Digital Image

Abstract

The widespread availability of advanced image editing software has transformed digital image forgery into an urgent issue in multimedia forensics. Traditional forgery methods—copy-move, splicing, and retouching—taint the authenticity of digital images, allowing malicious individuals to disseminate misinformation, tamper with legal evidence, and compromise digital trust. Forgery detection and localization are crucial for uses in cybersecurity, journalism, law enforcement, and digital forensics.This paper provides a systematic survey and comparative evaluation of the latest forensic methods for detecting forgery and localizing it. We classify existing methods intoDigital image forensics is concerned with confirming image genuineness by identifying evidence of tampering. Typical forgery methods are:Copy-Move Forgery (CMF): Copying and pasting areas within the same image.Image Splicing: Merging pieces from multiple images into a composite.Retouching: Modifying image characteristics (e.g., eliminating objects or altering face features).Handcrafted feature-based traditional techniques (e.g., DCT coefficients, SIFT keypoints, noise discrepancies, and JPEG compression artifact). Deep learning-based methods based on CNNs, autoencoders, and GANs to identify covert tampering signals.

Introduction

Digital image forgery has become a significant concern in today's digital world, where accessible image editing tools enable the creation of manipulated content for malicious purposes. Forgery detection and localization are essential to ensure the authenticity and integrity of digital images, especially in legal, journalistic, and forensic contexts.

???? Common Forgery Techniques

• Copy-Move Forgery: Duplicating a portion of an image and pasting it elsewhere within the same image.

• Splicing: Combining parts from different images to create a composite.

• Retouching: Altering image details, such as removing or adding elements.

These manipulations often leave detectable artifacts, such as inconsistencies in pixel patterns, noise, and compression artifacts, which can be analyzed to identify tampering.

???? Detection Methods

Conventional Techniques

• Block-Based Methods: Divide images into blocks and analyze features like Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) to detect similarities indicative of forgery.

• Error Level Analysis (ELA): Recompresses an image and compares the error levels between the original and recompressed versions to identify inconsistencies.

Deep Learning Approaches

• Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs): Automatically learn features from images to detect forgeries. Models like ResNet, EfficientNet, and VGG have been utilized for this purpose.

• Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Networks and Autoencoders: Analyze temporal or spatial inconsistencies in videos or images.

• Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): Both generate realistic fake images and can be used to detect such forgeries by identifying artifacts unique to GAN-generated content.

???? Proposed Hybrid Methodology

A hybrid approach combines deep learning with traditional forensic analysis to enhance detection accuracy:

1. Preprocessing & Noise Residual Extraction: Apply Bayesian-based noise separation to highlight tampering artifacts.

2. Multi-Branch Feature Extraction:

   • Deep Learning Branch: Utilize a modified ResNet-50 model to extract deep features.

   • Forensic Feature Branch: Extract handcrafted features like noise variance and texture patterns.

3. Feature Fusion & Forgery Classification: Combine deep and forensic features into a unified vector for classification.

4. Tampered Region Localization: Use a U-Net segmentation network to pinpoint manipulated areas.

???? Experimental Results

• Copy-Move Forgery Detection: Deep learning methods achieved 96-98% accuracy, outperforming traditional techniques.

• Image Splicing Detection: Noise inconsistency analysis combined with machine learning classifiers like SVM and Random Forest reached 90-95% precision.

• Deepfake Detection: CNN-based detectors identified GAN-manipulated images with 92-96% accuracy but faced challenges with unseen variants.

• Real-World Challenges: JPEG compression and anti-forensic attacks reduced detection accuracy by 15-20%.

???? Future Directions

• Generalization to New Forgery Types: Develop models that can adapt to emerging manipulation techniques.

• Adversarial Robustness: Implement adversarial training to defend against counter-forensic attacks.

• Real-Time Detection: Optimize models for faster processing, suitable for real-time applications.

• Explainability: Enhance model transparency to ensure reliability in legal and forensic contexts.

Conclusion

Digital image forgery detection is crucial in today\'s world of advanced photo editing and AI-generated fakes. While current methods can detect most forgeries with over 90% accuracy in tests, they still struggle with real-world challenges like compressed images and new types of manipulations.The best solutions combine AI analysis with traditional techniques, balancing accuracy and speed. However, as forgery tools improve, detectors must keep evolving too. Future research should focus on:Making detection faster for real-time useImproving recognition of new fake typesDeveloping unbreakable verification methods This ongoing \"arms race\" between fakers and detectors will require continuous innovation to maintain trust in digital images. Simple, reliable tools are needed for everyday use by journalists, investigators, and social media platforms to spot fakes quickly and accurately. The goal is not perfect detection, but practical solutions that keep pace with advancing manipulation technology.

References

[1] Irene Amerini et al. \"Copy-move forgery detection and localization bymeans of robust clustering with}-Linkage\". In: Signal Processing: Image Communication28.6(2013),pp.659-669. [2] IreneAmerinietal.\"Geometrictamperingestimationbymeansofa SIFT-basedforensicanalysis\".In:AcousticsSpeechand SignalProcessing (ICASSP),2010 IEEEInternational Conference on.IEEE.2010, pp.1702-1705. [3] IreneAmerinietal.\"LocalizationofJPEGdoublecompression through multi-domain convolutional neural networks\". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.01788 (2017). [4] Irene Ameriniet al. \"Splicing forgeries localization through the use of first digit features\". In: Information Forensics andSecurity (WIFS),2014 IEEEIn­ ternational Workshop on.IEEE. 2014, pp.143-148. [5] Edoardo Ardizzone, Alessandro Bruno, and Giuseppe Mazzola. \"Copy­ moveforgery detectionviatexturedescription\".In:Proceedingsofthe2nd ACMworkshoponMultimedia inforensics,securityand intelligence.ACM. 2010, pp. 59-64. [6] Khurshid Asghar, Zulfiqar Habib, and Muhammad Hussain. \"Copy-move andsplicing image forgery detection and localization techniques: a re­view\".In:AustralianJournalofForensic Sciences49.3(2017), pp.281-307. [7] Muhammet Batanet al.\"BilVideo-7: AnMPEG-7CompatibleVideoIn­ dexingandRetrievalSystem\".In:IEEEMultiMedia17.3(2009),pp.62-73. DOI:http:// doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/ 10. 1109/MMUL.2009.74. [8] KhosroBahrami,AlexCKot,andJiayuanFan.\"Splicingdetectionin out-of-focusblurredimages\".In:InformationForensicsand Security(WIFS), 2013IEEEInternationalWorkshopon.IEEE.2013,pp.144-149. [9] Nikola Banic and Sven Loncaric. \"Using the random sprays Retinex algorithm for global illumination estimation\". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.0307 (2013). [10] Connelly Barnes et al. \"PatchMatch: A randomized correspondence al­ gorithm for struchrral imageediting\". In:ACM Trans.Graph. 28.3(2009), PP•24-1. [11] Connelly Barnes et al. \"The generalizedpatchmatch correspondence algo­ rithm\".In:EuropeanConferenceonComputerVision.Springer.2010,pp.29- 43. [12] MauroBarniandAndreaCostanzo.\"Afuzzyapproachtodealwithtm­ certaintyinimageforensics\".In:SignalProcessing:ImageCommunication 27.9(2012),pp.998-1010. [13] Belhassen Bayar and Matthew C Stamm. \"A deep learning approach to universal image manipulationdetectionusing a new convolutionallayer\". In: Proceedingsof the 4th ACM Workshop on InformationHiding and Multime­ dia Security.ACM.2016, pp.5-10. [14] Belhassen Bayar and Matthew C Stamm. \"A Generic Approach Towards Image Manipulation Parameter Estimation Using Convolutional Neural Networks\". In: Proceedings of the5th ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security.ACM. 2017, pp.147-157. [15] JacobBenestyetal.\"Pearsoncorrelationcoefficient\".In:Noisereductionin speechprocessing.Springer, 2009, pp.1-4. [16] Xiuli Bi,Chi-Man Pun,and Xiao-Chen Yuan.\"Multi-level densedescriptor and hierarchical feature matching for copy-move forgery detection\". In: Information Sciences345(2016),pp.226-242. [17] Tiziano Bianchi, Alessia De Rosa, and Alessandro Piva. \"Improved DCT coefficient analysisforforgerylocalization in JPEG images\".In:Acoustics, SpeechandSignalProcessing(ICASSP),2011IEEEInternationalConference on.IEEE. 2011, pp.2444-2447. [18] Tiziano Bianchi and Alessandro Piva. \"Detection of non-aligned double JPEG compressionwith estimationofprimarycompressionparameters\". In: Image Processing (ICIP),201118thIEEEInternationalConferenceon.IEEE. 2011, pp. 1929-1932.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Monica Saha, Prakash Singh, Neha Rai, Ms. Aarti Attri, Mr. Harendra Singh, Dr. Saumya Chaturvedi, Dr. Sureshwati . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.