Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

SAFIRE: Segment Any Forged Image Region

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SAFIRE claims point-prompt source segmentation can partition a forged image into every originating source region, a first, while also setting new binary forgery localization results.

desk verdict A genuinely new task formulation with strong binary results, but the multi-source evaluation has an unaddressed train/test overlap question. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08197 v1 pith:W6AITLID submitted 2024-12-11 cs.CV cs.AIcs.MM

Myung-Joon Kwon , Wonjun Lee , Seung-Hun Nam , Minji Son , Changick Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.MM
keywords imageforensicsforgerylocalizationmulti-sourcepartitioningpointpromptingsegmentanythingcontrastivelearningsourcesegmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SAFIRE reframes image forgery localization as a source-partitioning problem: instead of labeling pixels forged or original, the model asks which originating source each point belongs to. The paper claims this is the first method that can distinguish each source when an image has been forged two or more times, producing a three-or-more-source partition, and that the same model also outperforms existing binary forgery localizers on five public datasets. A sympathetic reader would care because real forgeries are often composites of several donors, and knowing how many sources compose an image and where each one sits is richer forensic evidence than a single forged mask. The method trains on ordinary binary masks yet gains the multi-source ability.

What carries the argument

The central object is the point prompt as a source reference. Given a point, the mask decoder is trained to segment exactly the connected source region containing it; the training signal is an area-adaptive source segmentation loss on point masks built from binary ground truths by labeling the prompted connected component 1, neighboring components 0, and ignoring the rest. Around this, region-to-region contrastive pretraining pulls image embeddings from the same source region together, and grid-based inference aggregates per-point masks by clustering representative features, with the most confident mask per cluster forming the final partition.

What would settle it

Take an image from one camera, paste the same donor patch into two separate non-adjacent locations, and present it to SAFIRE with binary ground truth; if the two pasted patches are placed in different clusters or only one is localized, the connected-component source assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that point-prompt source segmentation is a better formulation of forgery localization than binary segmentation. SAFIRE feeds an image plus a grid of point prompts into a Segment Anything-style image encoder, mask decoder, and prompt encoder; each prompt returns the region sharing the source of that point, and the per-point prediction maps are clustered by their representative image embeddings to partition the image into source regions. Trained with a connected-component-derived point mask that labels only the prompted region and its immediate neighbors, the model learns label-agnostic source consistency rather than memorized forgery traces. The paper reports that this achieves state-of-the-art binary F1 scores and, uniquely, multi-source partitioning with up to four sources in its constructed expert dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that in a binary forgery mask, each connected component corresponds to exactly one source region, so the training signal cannot express a source that appears as two disconnected patches or two sources fused into one component.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Forensic analysis can answer 'how many sources and where' without retraining on multi-source labels.
  • Binary localization gains from the relational formulation, with the paper reporting the highest average F1 fixed and F1 best among compared methods.
  • Training on binary masks transfers to multi-source inference, so existing labeled datasets remain usable.
  • The approach opens a route to provenance filtering, since each partitioned region can be matched to candidate donor images.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The connected-component premise implies that a source split into two disconnected patches, or two sources touching in a way that merges components, will be mis-partitioned; a direct stress test would forge an image by pasting the same donor twice in two places and check whether both patches land in one cluster.
  • The clustering stage suggests that the method's upper bound is set by how well embedding averages separate sources, so unusually small donor regions may be lost even when the mask decoder is correct.
  • Because partition quality depends on grid density, adaptive point placement near region boundaries could improve results relative to a fixed grid with the same compute.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SAFIRE, a point-prompt-based image forgery localization method built on the Segment Anything Model (SAM). The method has three phases: region-to-region contrastive pretraining on a large synthetic dataset (SafireMS-Auto), training on binary forgery masks converted into point masks via Eq. (3), and inference by aggregating grid-prompt predictions through clustering of representative embedding features. The paper reports state-of-the-art binary IFL results on five public datasets and introduces a new multi-source partitioning task evaluated on a 238-image author-created dataset (SafireMS-Expert), claiming to be the first method that can distinguish multiple source regions in a forged image.

Significance. If the results hold, SAFIRE makes a useful contribution by reframing IFL as source-region partitioning and showing that a SAM-based point-prompting model can be trained on binary labels to produce multi-source partitions. The binary IFL results are strong and consistent across five external datasets, and the authors provide a clear pipeline with a released-code commitment and a large synthetic pretraining dataset. The main caveat is that the multi-source novelty claim rests on a single author-created dataset with a potential overlap with the pretraining data, and the entire empirical evaluation lacks error bars.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix, SafireMS-Auto and SafireMS-Expert] The pretraining corpus for the image encoder is built from 30,244 DPReview photographs, and the multi-source test set SafireMS-Expert uses original images from DPReview and COCO 2017. The paper does not report any check for overlap between the DPReview images used in SafireMS-Expert and those used to create SafireMS-Auto. Since the pretraining phase performs contrastive learning on these images, any overlap would give the encoder direct exposure to the test images, and the multi-source scores in Table 3 (e.g., 2-source pmIoU 90.3, ARI 80.7) could partly reflect memorization rather than generalizable partitioning. This is load-bearing because Table 3 is the sole quantitative support for the paper's central claim of being "the first method capable of distinguishing each source." Please include an overlap analysis (exact-match or perceptual-hash) and, if overlap exists, retrain with a disjoint pretraining pool or exclude overlapping test images.
  2. [Appendix, Experimental Environment; Reproducibility Checklist] All results are measured once, with no error bars or statistical significance tests, as stated in the appendix ("All results of the proposed method and comparison techniques were measured once identically") and confirmed by the reproducibility checklist entries. The paper's claims of "superior performance" and "top performance" in Tables 1 and 3 are therefore unsupported by any measure of variance. Given that the improvements over prior methods are large in most cases this is not disqualifying, but the absence of distributional information makes it impossible to assess the reliability of the smaller differences and the stability of the multi-source results. Please report multiple runs with means and standard deviations (or confidence intervals) and apply appropriate significance tests for the key comparisons.
  3. [Eq. (3), Point Mask Creation] The point-mask construction assumes that a source region is exactly a connected component of the binary forgery mask. If a single source region appears as two disconnected patches (e.g., two separate pasted objects from the same donor image, or a copy-move where the original and the duplicate belong to the same source), the training label in Eq. (3) cannot express the true source partition and will actively teach the model to split the source. The paper does not discuss this assumption or scope the method accordingly. Please clarify the definition of "source region," state the connectedness assumption explicitly, and discuss or evaluate how the method behaves when source regions are disconnected. If the SafireMS-Expert benchmark contains only connected source regions, the claim "capable of distinguishing each source" should be limited to connected-source scenarios.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page, affiliations] The affiliation "NA VER WEBTOON AI" appears to be a typo for "NAVER WEBTOON AI."
  2. [Eq. (1)-(2)] Eq. (1) contains "Inf oN CE" with unusual spacing, and the description in Eq. (2) that "· returns the average over all elements" is unclear since no averaging symbol is visible in the equation.
  3. [Appendix, Metrics for Multi-source Partitioning] The generalized pmIoU in Eq. (13) is not fully specified for the case where the predicted number of clusters N_pred is less than the ground-truth number of sources N; the text only explains the case N_pred > N.
  4. [Reproducibility Checklist] The checklist states that "All novel datasets introduced in this paper are included in a data appendix" with answer "partial," but the appendix contains only statistics and examples, not the actual dataset; please clarify how this item is satisfied.
  5. [Experimental Settings, Implementation Details] Training hyperparameters such as learning rate, number of epochs, optimizer, batch size, and adapter dimensions are not reported in the main text or in the appendix excerpt; please include them for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SAFIRE's reported predictions are not equivalent to its training inputs; the main derivation is an empirical pipeline validated on external benchmarks.

full rationale

SAFIRE's central claims rest on an empirical training/inference pipeline, not on a chain of equations that reinstates its inputs. The point-mask construction (Eq. 3) converts binary ground-truth masks into per-point targets by connected components and neighbor relations, but this is a training heuristic; the final multi-source result comes from clustering representative image embeddings (Eqs. 8-10) and is evaluated against the separately hand-constructed SafireMS-Expert labels, which are not the same labels used in pretraining or in Eq. 3. The contrastive pretraining loss (Eq. 2) uses source-region partitions from the auto-generated SafireMS-Auto corpus, and the final evaluation is on external binary IFL benchmarks (Columbia, COVERAGE, CocoGlide, RealisticTampering, NC16) that are disjoint from the training datasets, so the binary localization results are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The self-citations (Kwon et al. 2021/2022 for the CAT-Net training setting and permuted mIoU) are methodological references, not load-bearing arguments that force the outcome. The main legitimate concerns are experimental rather than circular: the SafireMS-Expert benchmark was constructed by the authors and no overlap analysis is reported between its DPReview/COCO source images and the DPReview images used for SafireMS-Auto pretraining, and the connected-component assumption in Eq. 3 cannot represent disconnected same-source regions; the reproducibility checklist also acknowledges partial dataset appendix inclusion and no statistical tests. These are validity and robustness limitations, not circular reductions, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several unproved domain assumptions: that source regions are visually and statistically uniform and separable in embedding space, that binary masks' connected components represent sources, that synthetic pretraining data approximates real forgeries, and that clustering mask features recovers source identity. These are modeling assumptions, not equations derived from first principles. Free parameters are standard training hyperparameters, several unspecified.

free parameters (6)
  • InfoNCE temperature tau = 0.1
    Hyperparameter in Eq. (1) for region-to-region contrastive loss, chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis.
  • Area-adaptive loss weight cap C_AASS = 10
    Hyperparameter capping per-pixel weights in Eq. (4), chosen by hand.
  • Confidence loss weight lambda_conf = 0.1
    Balances L_AASS and L_conf in Eq. (6), chosen by hand.
  • Point grid density = 16x16
    Selected empirically; Fig. 13 shows saturation near this density, but the choice is a tuning parameter.
  • Number of clusters M for binary inference = 2
    Fixed to 2 for binary IFL; for multi-source k-means M is set to the known number of sources, and DBSCAN parameters for automatic M are not reported.
  • Adapter architecture hyperparameters = not reported
    Dimensions and depth of the adapter blocks in the image encoder are not fully specified, so they are free choices by the authors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pixels originating from the same source region share uniform low-level characteristics, and different source regions are separable in the learned embedding space.
    Foundation for region-to-region contrastive pretraining and point-mask segmentation; stated in Introduction and Fig. 3.
  • domain assumption In binary forgery masks, each connected component corresponds to exactly one source region, so point masks can be derived by labeling only the prompt's component and its neighbors.
    Point Mask Creation, Eq. (3); non-neighboring regions are ignored, so disconnected same-source components are not modeled during training.
  • domain assumption Global post-processing (blur, noise, contrast) can be made invariant via probabilistic augmentation, so the encoder focuses on local source-distinguishing features.
    Pretraining section, global post-processing paragraph.
  • domain assumption Clustering representative features (mean embeddings over predicted masks) groups masks from the same source.
    Inference section: 'clustering is predicated on the assumption that the SAFIRE model accurately extracts features'.
  • ad hoc to paper SafireMS-Auto is a noise-free large-scale proxy for real forgeries, with masks generated by SAM semantic regions and automatically composed copy-move, splicing, and inpainting.
    Pretraining section; introduces a synthetic pretraining distribution unique to this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SAFIRE: Segment Any Forged Image Region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6AITLID

@misc{pith2026241208197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SAFIRE: Segment Any Forged Image Region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6AITLID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08197}
}
read the original abstract

Most techniques approach the problem of image forgery localization as a binary segmentation task, training neural networks to label original areas as 0 and forged areas as 1. In contrast, we tackle this issue from a more fundamental perspective by partitioning images according to their originating sources. To this end, we propose Segment Any Forged Image Region (SAFIRE), which solves forgery localization using point prompting. Each point on an image is used to segment the source region containing itself. This allows us to partition images into multiple source regions, a capability achieved for the first time. Additionally, rather than memorizing certain forgery traces, SAFIRE naturally focuses on uniform characteristics within each source region. This approach leads to more stable and effective learning, achieving superior performance in both the new task and the traditional binary forgery localization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08197 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The forged image is composed of three source re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of how SAFIRE conducts IFL. An im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pretraining. Features originating from the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training. The adapter and mask decoder are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Inference. Multiple points in a grid pattern are in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of IFL. The colors indicate the con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of multi-source IFL. Each color rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SAFIRE model architecture. The outline of SAFIRE model is shown on the left-hand side. The image encoder and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SafireMS-Auto examples. The types of post [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: These include the results of k-means clustering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SafireMS-Expert examples. Each color represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prediction maps. Each image illustrates the prediction map of the SAFIRE model when an input image and a green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Robustness test. The performance changes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Effect of the number of points. As the points are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visualization of multi-source partitioning. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Survey on AI-Generated Media Detection: From Non-MLLM to MLLM

    cs.CV 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey organizing AI-generated media detection into Non-MLLM and MLLM based methods, with task and benchmark taxonomies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Baevski, A.; Zhou, Y.; Mohamed, A.; and Auli, M. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 12449--12460

    2020

  2. [2]

    Bammey, Q.; Gioi, R. G. v.; and Morel, J.-M. 2020. An adaptive neural network for unsupervised mosaic consistency analysis in image forensics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14194--14204

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    A.; Adeli, E.; Altman, R.; Arora, S.; von Arx, S.; Bernstein, M

    Bommasani, R.; Hudson, D. A.; Adeli, E.; Altman, R.; Arora, S.; von Arx, S.; Bernstein, M. S.; Bohg, J.; Bosselut, A.; Brunskill, E.; et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Chen, T.; Zhu, L.; Deng, C.; Cao, R.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Li, Z.; Sun, L.; Zang, Y.; and Mao, P. 2023. Sam-adapter: Adapting segment anything in underperformed scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 3367--3375

    2023

  5. [5]

    Chen, Z.; Duan, Y.; Wang, W.; He, J.; Lu, T.; Dai, J.; and Qiao, Y. 2022. Vision transformer adapter for dense predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.08534

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Cozzolino, D.; and Verdoliva, L. 2019. Noiseprint: A CNN-Based Camera Model Fingerprint. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 15: 144--159

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Dong, C.; Chen, X.; Hu, R.; Cao, J.; and Li, X. 2022. Mvss-net: Multi-view multi-scale supervised networks for image manipulation detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(3): 3539--3553

    2022

  8. [8]

    Dong, J.; Wang, W.; and Tan, T. 2013. Casia image tampering detection evaluation database. In 2013 IEEE China Summit and International Conference on Signal and Information Processing, 422--426. IEEE

    work page 2013

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Y.; Yang, Y.; and Gan, Z

    Fu, T.-J.; Hu, W.; Du, X.; Wang, W. Y.; Yang, Y.; and Gan, Z. 2023. Guiding instruction-based image editing via multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17102

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    N.; Delgado, A.; Zhou, D.; Kheyrkhah, T.; Smith, J.; and Fiscus, J

    Guan, H.; Kozak, M.; Robertson, E.; Lee, Y.; Yates, A. N.; Delgado, A.; Zhou, D.; Kheyrkhah, T.; Smith, J.; and Fiscus, J. 2019. MFC datasets: Large-scale benchmark datasets for media forensic challenge evaluation. In 2019 IEEE Winter Applications of Computer Vision Workshops ...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Guillaro, F.; Cozzolino, D.; Sud, A.; Dufour, N.; and Verdoliva, L. 2023. TruFor: Leveraging all-round clues for trustworthy image forgery detection and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 20606--20615

    2023

  4. [12]

    Hao, J.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, S.; Xie, D.; and Pu, S. 2021. Transforensics: image forgery localization with dense self-attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 15055--15064

    2021

  5. [13]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 6840--6851

    2020

  6. [14]

    Houlsby, N.; Giurgiu, A.; Jastrzebski, S.; Morrone, B.; De Laroussilhe, Q.; Gesmundo, A.; Attariyan, M.; and Gelly, S. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2790--2799. PMLR

    2019

  7. [15]

    Hu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, Z.; Chaudhuri, S.; Yang, Z.; and Nevatia, R. 2020. SPAN: Spatial pyramid attention network for image manipulation localization. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXI 16, 312--3...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Huh, M.; Liu, A.; Owens, A.; and Efros, A. A. 2018. Fighting fake news: Image splice detection via learned self-consistency. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 101--117

    2018

  9. [17]

    Ji, K.; Chen, F.; Guo, X.; Xu, Y.; Wang, J.; and Chen, J. 2023 a . Uncertainty-guided Learning for Improving Image Manipulation Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 22456--22465

    2023

  10. [18]

    Ji, W.; Li, J.; Bi, Q.; Li, W.; and Cheng, L. 2023 b . Segment anything is not always perfect: An investigation of sam on different real-world applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05750

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Karageorgiou, D.; Kordopatis-Zilos, G.; and Papadopoulos, S. 2024. Fusion Transformer with Object Mask Guidance for Image Forgery Analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4345--4355

    2024

  12. [20]

    C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al

    Kirillov, A.; Mintun, E.; Ravi, N.; Mao, H.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Xiao, T.; Whitehead, S.; Berg, A. C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al. 2023. Segment anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    V.; Knyaz, V.; and Remondino, F

    Kniaz, V. V.; Knyaz, V.; and Remondino, F. 2019. The point where reality meets fantasy: Mixed adversarial generators for image splice detection. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 215--226

    2019

  14. [22]

    Korus, P.; and Huang, J. 2016. Multi-scale analysis strategies in PRNU-based tampering localization. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 12(4): 809--824

    2016

  15. [23]

    Kwon, M.-J.; Nam, S.-H.; Yu, I.-J.; Lee, H.-K.; and Kim, C. 2022. Learning JPEG compression artifacts for image manipulation detection and localization. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(8): 1875--1895

    2022

  16. [24]

    Kwon, M.-J.; Yu, I.-J.; Nam, S.-H.; and Lee, H.-K. 2021. CAT-Net: Compression Artifact Tracing Network for Detection and Localization of Image Splicing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 375--384

    2021

  17. [25]

    Li, D.; Zhu, J.; Wang, M.; Liu, J.; Fu, X.; and Zha, Z.-J. 2023. Edge-Aware Regional Message Passing Controller for Image Forgery Localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8222--8232

    2023

  18. [26]

    Li, Y.; Hu, M.; and Yang, X. 2023. Polyp-sam: Transfer sam for polyp segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00293

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Li, Y.; Mao, H.; Girshick, R.; and He, K. 2022. Exploring plain vision transformer backbones for object detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 280--296. Springer

    2022

  20. [28]

    Lin, L.; Gupta, N.; Zhang, Y.; Ren, H.; Liu, C.-H.; Ding, F.; Wang, X.; Li, X.; Verdoliva, L.; and Hu, S. 2024. Detecting Multimedia Generated by Large AI Models: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00045

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lin, T.-Y.; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Zitnick, C. L. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European conference on computer vision, 740--755. Springer

    2014

  22. [30]

    Liu, W.; Shen, X.; Pun, C.-M.; and Cun, X. 2023. Explicit visual prompting for low-level structure segmentations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 19434--19445

    2023

  23. [31]

    Liu, X.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; and Liu, X. 2022. PSCC-Net: Progressive spatio-channel correlation network for image manipulation detection and localization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32(11): 7505--7517

    2022

  24. [32]

    W.; Flynn, P

    Moreira, D.; Bharati, A.; Brogan, J.; Pinto, A.; Parowski, M.; Bowyer, K. W.; Flynn, P. J.; Rocha, A.; and Scheirer, W. J. 2018. Image provenance analysis at scale. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(12): 6109--6123

    2018

  25. [33]

    Ng, T.-T.; Chang, S.-F.; and Sun, Q. 2004. A data set of authentic and spliced image blocks. Columbia University, ADVENT Technical Report 203-2004-3

    2004

  26. [34]

    F.; Bhaumik, K

    Niloy, F. F.; Bhaumik, K. K.; and Woo, S. S. 2023. CFL-Net: Image forgery localization using contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 4642--4651

    2023

  27. [35]

    Novozamsky, A.; Mahdian, B.; and Saic, S. 2020. IMD2020: A Large-Scale Annotated Dataset Tailored for Detecting Manipulated Images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops, 71--80

    2020

  28. [36]

    Oord, A. v. d.; Li, Y.; and Vinyals, O. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Pinto, A.; Moreira, D.; Bharati, A.; Brogan, J.; Bowyer, K.; Flynn, P.; Scheirer, W.; and Rocha, A. 2017. Provenance filtering for multimedia phylogeny. In 2017 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), 1502--1506. IEEE

    2017

  30. [38]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, 8748--8763. PMLR

    2021

  31. [39]

    Rao, Y.; and Ni, J. 2021. Self-supervised domain adaptation for forgery localization of JPEG compressed images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 15034--15043

    2021

  32. [40]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  33. [41]

    Sabir, E.; Nandi, S.; Abd-Almageed, W.; and Natarajan, P. 2021. Biofors: A large biomedical image forensics dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 10963--10973

    2021

  34. [42]

    Su, Y.; Tan, S.; and Huang, J. 2024. A Novel Universal Image Forensics Localization Model Based on Image Noise and Segment Anything Model. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security, 149--158

    2024

  35. [43]

    Sun, Z.; Jiang, H.; Wang, D.; Li, X.; and Cao, J. 2023. Safl-net: Semantic-agnostic feature learning network with auxiliary plugins for image manipulation detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 22424--22433

    2023

  36. [44]

    Tang, L.; Xiao, H.; and Li, B. 2023. Can sam segment anything? when sam meets camouflaged object detection. arXiv 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04709

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Verdoliva, L. 2020. Media forensics and deepfakes: an overview. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 14(5): 910--932

    2020

  38. [46]

    Wang, J.; Sun, K.; Cheng, T.; Jiang, B.; Deng, C.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, D.; Mu, Y.; Tan, M.; Wang, X.; et al. 2020. Deep high-resolution representation learning for visual recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence

    2020

  39. [47]

    Wang, J.; Wu, Z.; Chen, J.; Han, X.; Shrivastava, A.; Lim, S.-N.; and Jiang, Y.-G. 2022. Objectformer for image manipulation detection and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2364--2373

    2022

  40. [48]

    Wen, B.; Zhu, Y.; Subramanian, R.; Ng, T.-T.; Shen, X.; and Winkler, S. 2016. COVERAGE—A novel database for copy-move forgery detection. In 2016 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), 161--165. IEEE

    2016

  41. [49]

    Wu, H.; Chen, Y.; and Zhou, J. 2023. Rethinking Image Forgery Detection via Contrastive Learning and Unsupervised Clustering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09307

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Wu, H.; Zhou, J.; Tian, J.; and Liu, J. 2022. Robust image forgery detection over online social network shared images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 13440--13449

    2022

  43. [51]

    Wu, Y.; AbdAlmageed, W.; and Natarajan, P. 2019. ManTra-Net: Manipulation tracing network for detection and localization of image forgeries with anomalous features. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9543--9552

    2019

  44. [52]

    Yu, T.; Feng, R.; Feng, R.; Liu, J.; Jin, X.; Zeng, W.; and Chen, Z. 2023. Inpaint anything: Segment anything meets image inpainting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06790

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Zeng, K.; Cheng, R.; Tan, W.; and Yan, B. 2024. MGQFormer: Mask-Guided Query-Based Transformer for Image Manipulation Localization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 6944--6952

    2024

  46. [54]

    Zhang, L.; Rao, A.; and Agrawala, M. 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 3836--3847

    2023

  47. [55]

    Y.; and Feng, W

    Zhou, J.; Ma, X.; Du, X.; Alhammadi, A. Y.; and Feng, W. 2023 a . Pre-training-free Image Manipulation Localization through Non-Mutually Exclusive Contrastive Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 22346--22356

    2023

  48. [56]

    I.; and Davis, L

    Zhou, P.; Han, X.; Morariu, V. I.; and Davis, L. S. 2018. Learning rich features for image manipulation detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1053--1061

    2018

  49. [57]

    Zhou, T.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Wu, Y.; and Gong, C. 2023 b . Can sam segment polyps? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07583

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Zhu, J.; Li, D.; Fu, X.; Yang, G.; Huang, J.; Liu, A.; and Zha, Z.-J. 2024. Learning Discriminative Noise Guidance for Image Forgery Detection and Localization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 7739--7747

    2024

  51. [59]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  52. [60]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.