Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Multi-Scale Cross-Fusion and Edge-Supervision Network for Image Splicing Localization

T0 review · 4 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 Explicit edge supervision plus multi-scale RGB-noise fusion lifts splicing localization to state-of-the-art F1 scores on three public benchmarks.

desk verdict A plausible architecture with an internally coherent ablation, but the headline SOTA margin is not established because the comparison is mismatched: 120k extra pre-training for the proposed model versus baselines taken from original papers. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12503 v1 pith:FHYJRBHO submitted 2024-12-17 cs.CV

Yakun Niu , Pei Chen , Lei Zhang , Hongjian Yin , Qi Chang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords imagesplicinglocalizationmulti-scalefeaturescross-scalefusioncross-domainedgesupervisionnoisefingerprintforensics
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

The paper sets out to show that image splicing can be localized more accurately when the network is explicitly taught the boundary of the forged region while also merging multi-scale features from two complementary views: the RGB image and its sensor noise fingerprint. The authors build an end-to-end dual-branch network with a SegFormer backbone, a cross-scale fusion step that combines neighboring feature resolutions, and a cross-domain fusion step that mixes RGB and noise features with conditionally parameterized convolutions. A separate edge-mask branch predicts the forged-region boundary from Sobel-based edge blocks, and that edge mask is folded back into the localization heads through attention to supervise training incrementally. The paper reports state-of-the-art F1 scores on three public benchmarks, 92.3 on CASIAv2, 97.1 on Columbia, and 98.7 on NIST16, with gains of 2.3 to 4.1 F1 points over the best listed baseline. A reader should care because better edge exploitation is a path to reducing both missed regions and false alarms in practical image forensics.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a three-stage dual-branch architecture. Cross-Scale Fusion resamples and concatenates neighboring resolution layers from the SegFormer backbone so that both local boundary detail and global inconsistency are present. Cross-Domain Fusion uses conditional convolution (CondConv) to adaptively combine RGB features with noise-fingerprint features, exploiting the complementarity between visible appearance and sensor-level traces. Edge Mask Prediction builds Sobel-operator edge blocks in a progressive chain, multiplying the predicted edge prior back into the RGB features so boundary artifacts are highlighted. Edge-Supervision Localization then runs four SCCM heads (spatial plus channel attention) that consume the fused features together with the reshaped edge mask, producing progressively refined masks; the final loss is a sum of BCE losses on the four forgery masks plus a Dice loss on the predicted edge mask, with the edge ground truth obtained by a Sobel operation on the coarsest mask.

What would settle it

Rerun the six baselines and the proposed network under identical training data, input size, and post-processing on CASIAv2, Columbia, and NIST16, and check whether the reported F1 margins (3.2, 4.1, and 2.3 points) survive; if the gaps vanish or invert when all methods share the same protocol, the central claim is not attributable to the architecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that edge information, treated as a first-class supervision signal rather than a byproduct, is what pushes splicing localization past existing methods. The network takes an RGB image and its NoisePrint++ noise image, runs each through a SegFormer encoder to get four scales of features, fuses neighboring scales, then fuses the RGB and noise domains via CondConv. From the RGB features it predicts a boundary mask using stacked Sobel-based edge blocks, and the predicted edge mask is multiplied back into the fused features before four SCCM attention heads produce progressively refined forgery masks. On the three standard datasets the authors report the best published F1 in their comparison, with precision, recall, and F1 all improved; for instance, against D-Net on Columbia the F1 gain is 4.1 points, and against PSCC-Net on CASIAv2 it is 3.2 points. The ablation study attributes the gain to the combination of cross-scale fusion, cross-domain fusion, and edge supervision, with edge supervision contributing the single largest increment.

Load-bearing premise

The whole superiority claim rests on the assumption that the comparison is fair: every baseline was evaluated with the same test split, input resolution, and post-processing, and none of the 120,000 pre-training images overlaps the benchmark test images.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Explicitly supervising the forged boundary can reduce false alarms and improve region integrity, since the edge mask concentrates training on the most decisive pixels.
  • Combining RGB and noise-fingerprint domains in a transformer segmentation backbone yields complementary cues that improve pixel-level localization over either domain alone.
  • On the three standard benchmarks (CASIAv2, Columbia, NIST16), the method reports F1 gains of 3.2, 4.1, and 2.3 points over the best listed baselines, suggesting practical headroom for forensic tools.
  • The progressive multi-scale supervision makes the localization robust to differences in forged-region scale, including small spliced patches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test would blur or compress the splices' seams: if the reported margin comes from edge supervision, sharp boundaries are the fuel, and seam-smoothing should shrink the F1 gap.
  • Because the cross-domain branch depends on a sensor-noise fingerprint, images that are heavily denoised or upsampled may erode the advantage; the paper's robustness experiments cover resize and Gaussian noise but not re-compression, so JPEG re-encoding remains an untested boundary.
  • The 120k-image pre-training on DEFACTO and PSCC is large relative to the fine-tuning sets, so a controlled comparison with smaller or no pre-training would separate the architecture's contribution from the scale of pre-training.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dual-branch end-to-end network for image splicing localization. An RGB image and a NoisePrint++-derived noise image are each fed into a SegFormer backbone to produce multi-scale features. These are aggregated by a cross-scale fusion (CSF) and a cross-domain fusion (CDF) module. A separate branch predicts an edge mask using Sobel-based edge blocks, and the fused features and edge mask are combined through SCCM attention heads in a progressive localization scheme. The loss combines BCE on four localization masks and Dice on the predicted edge mask (with the edge ground truth obtained by a Sobel projection of the segmentation ground truth). Experiments on CASIAv2, Columbia, and NIST16 report F1 scores of 92.3, 97.1, and 98.7, respectively, which the authors claim outperform state-of-the-art methods. Ablations show monotonic F1 improvements as modules are added.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, the architecture offers a practical improvement in splicing localization, and the explicit edge-supervision mechanism is a plausible and well-motivated component. The paper is clearly written in its architecture description, uses established components (SegFormer, CondConv, SCCM), and the ablation study is internally monotonic, which is a positive sign. However, the central claim of state-of-the-art superiority rests on Table I, and the comparison protocol there is not sufficiently controlled to support that claim. In particular, the proposed model is pre-trained on 120k images before fine-tuning, while the baselines' results are taken from heterogeneous sources, making the reported margins uninterpretable as architecture-level gains. The paper also lacks error bars, significance tests, and full reproducibility details. These gaps are load-bearing for the main claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Table I] The state-of-the-art comparison is confounded by unmatched training protocols. The proposed model is pre-trained on 120k DEFACTO and PSCC images (Section III-A1) before fine-tuning on the target datasets, whereas the baseline results are 'either taken from their original papers or by running the publicly available source code' (Section III-B). This means that each baseline may have been trained on different splits, at different resolutions, and with different pre-training. The confound is visible in Table II: the RGB-only variant (no noise branch, no CSF/CDF, no edge supervision) already scores F1=92.3 on Columbia and 95.9 on NIST16, exceeding or matching the majority of baselines listed in Table I (e.g., PSCC-Net 81.4 and 96.4, HiFi-Net 82.1 and 96.2). Because the only major difference between that row and the compared baselines is the 120k pre-training, the claimed improvement of 3.2-4.1 F1 points cannot be attributed to the proposed CSF/CDF/edge modules. A matched-protocol comparison, where all baselines are fine-tuned from the same pre-training and evaluated on the same split, is required to support the superiority claim.
  2. [Section III-C, Table II] The ablation results are presented without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and appear to come from a single run. The text in Section III-C reports that CSF improves performance by 'approximately 1.2%', CDF by 'about 0.5%', and edge supervision by 'around 1.7%', but several of these increments are small (e.g., CASIAv2 F1: 90.7 to 91.2 after adding CDF) and could be within run-to-run variance, especially given a batch size of 10 and only 25 epochs. The authors should either run multiple seeds and report mean and standard deviation, or provide significance tests, before drawing quantitative conclusions about the per-module contribution.
  3. [Section III-A, Section III-B] The reproducibility of the study is insufficient for the core claim. The training/testing split is specified only by reference to [3] ('we follow the same training/testing split on COLUMBIA, CASIAv2 and NIST16 datasets, as in [3]'), but the actual split (e.g., which images are in train versus test, and any class balancing) is not described. No code, split lists, or test-time preprocessing details (e.g., whether test images are resized to 256×256 and whether post-processing such as CRF is applied) are provided. Given that the comparison with prior work depends on identical evaluation conditions, this lack of detail prevents independent verification of the reported margins.
  4. [Section III-B, Fig. 2] The robustness claim is not substantiated quantitatively. The text states that the method 'achieves better performance on attacked images' after applying Resize (ratio 0.9) and Gaussian Noise (variance 3), and that this 'can be clearly seen from Fig. 2', but no numerical results, evaluation protocol for the attacked images, or error bars are provided. The figure appears to be a qualitative plot without axes labels or legend clarity. This claim should either be removed or supported with a table of metrics under the stated attacks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) defines Ei = Conv(EB(Conv(Ri ⊕ Ei−1))), but the surrounding text describes the Edge Block as containing a Sobel operator and a convolutional layer, and describes a multiplication of the edge prior with the RGB features. The equation does not match this description; please clarify the exact operations inside EB and how the multiplication with Ri is represented.
  2. [Section II-B, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) uses the notation (Ri−1; Ri; Ri+1) for the cross-scale fusion, but the text immediately states that for i = 1 only R1 and R2 are fused, and for i = 4 only R3 and R4 are fused. The boundary cases should be expressed explicitly in the equation or in a footnote.
  3. [Table I] Table I contains an extraneous run of Unicode-like garbage characters after the 'Ours' row (strings such as '/uni00000030/uni00000039/...'). This is clearly a formatting corruption and must be removed before publication.
  4. [Section III-B] The phrase 'slight worse' should be 'slightly worse'.
  5. [Section II-E] The loss in Eq. (5) applies BCE to all four localization masks and Dice only to the edge mask E4. It would be clearer if the authors stated whether the edge ground truth GE is derived from G4 (the lowest-resolution ground truth) and whether the Dice term is computed at the same resolution as E4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the architecture is trained with standard supervision and evaluated on held-out test splits.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical architecture paper; no derived quantity is defined in terms of the result it claims to predict. The loss in Eq. (5) is L = sum_i BCE(M_i, G_i) + Dice(E_4, G_E), where G_E is obtained by applying a Sobel operator to the ground-truth mask G_4. This makes the edge ground truth a training target only; the final localization output M_1 is produced by Eq. (4) from fused features and the predicted edge mask, not from G_i or G_E. The edge-supervision claim is therefore a standard auxiliary-supervision arrangement, not a fitted-input-renamed-prediction. Baseline comparisons in Section III-B are against external methods whose scores are taken from original papers or public code; no load-bearing self-citation or author-imported uniqueness theorem is used. The concern that the 120k-image pre-training and heterogeneous baseline protocols may confound the reported margins is a legitimate experimental-fairness issue, but it is not circularity: the reported numbers are not forced by the paper's construction or by self-referential definitions. No circular step can be exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim is an empirical performance claim, so the ledger is dominated by training-protocol choices and prior-art assumptions rather than new physical postulates. No new entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The comparison fairness and split integrity are the main uncharged assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • learning_rate = 2e-4
    Set for all experiments without sensitivity analysis; affects convergence and final metrics.
  • batch_size = 10
    Training choice; no search reported in Section III-A.
  • epochs = 25
    Training length with the learning rate halved every 5 epochs; no validation curve or early stopping is shown.
  • input_resize = 256x256
    All training data were scaled to 256 by 256 pixels; evaluation at this resolution may favor certain architectures.
  • loss_weight_ratio = 1:1 implicit
    Equation (5) sums BCE over four masks and one Dice term without explicit weights, making the balance a modeling choice that affects edge supervision strength.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NoisePrint++ yields a noise image that carries sensor-fingerprint cues relevant to splicing localization.
    Invoked in Section II-B as the source of the complementary noise-domain input.
  • domain assumption Edge artifacts at the boundary of the spliced region are reliable, informative clues for localization.
    Motivates the entire edge mask prediction and edge-supervision localization stages in Sections II-C and II-D.
  • domain assumption SegFormer features trained for semantic segmentation transfer to forensic manipulation detection after fine-tuning.
    The backbone is taken unchanged from [17] and used as the multi-scale feature extractor.
  • domain assumption The Sobel-derived edge map from the downsampled ground-truth mask is an adequate supervision target for edge learning.
    Equation (5) computes the edge ground truth GE by applying the Sobel operator to G4, the coarsest mask.
  • domain assumption The train/test split described as identical to [3] is well-defined and prevents leakage from the 120k pre-training images.
    Section III-A states the split but does not reproduce it or demonstrate disjointness from the evaluation sets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Scale Cross-Fusion and Edge-Supervision Network for Image Splicing Localization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHYJRBHO

@misc{pith2026241212503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Scale Cross-Fusion and Edge-Supervision Network for Image Splicing Localization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHYJRBHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12503}
}
read the original abstract

Image Splicing Localization (ISL) is a fundamental yet challenging task in digital forensics. Although current approaches have achieved promising performance, the edge information is insufficiently exploited, resulting in poor integrality and high false alarms. To tackle this problem, we propose a multi-scale cross-fusion and edge-supervision network for ISL. Specifically, our framework consists of three key steps: multi-scale features cross-fusion, edge mask prediction and edge-supervision localization. Firstly, we input the RGB image and its noise image into a segmentation network to learn multi-scale features, which are then aggregated via a cross-scale fusion followed by a cross-domain fusion to enhance feature representation. Secondly, we design an edge mask prediction module to effectively mine the reliable boundary artifacts. Finally, the cross-fused features and the reliable edge mask information are seamlessly integrated via an attention mechanism to incrementally supervise and facilitate model training. Extensive experiments on publicly available datasets demonstrate that our proposed method is superior to state-of-the-art schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12503 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed network architecture for splicing forgery localization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of localization for different methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Feature Aggregation and Region-Aware Learning for Detection of Splicing Forgery

    Yanzhi Xu, Jiangbin Zheng, Jinchang Ren, and Aiqing Fang. Feature Aggregation and Region-Aware Learning for Detection of Splicing Forgery. IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 31:696–700, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Minyoung Huh, Andrew Liu, Andrew Owens, and Alexei A. Efros. Fighting Fake News: Image Splice Detection via Learned Self- Consistency. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), September 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    D-Net: A dual-encoder network for image splicing forgery detection and localization

    Zonglin Yang, Bo Liu, Xiuli Bi, Bin Xiao, Weisheng Li, Guoyin Wang, and Xinbo Gao. D-Net: A dual-encoder network for image splicing forgery detection and localization. Pattern Recognition , 155:110727, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A robust copy-move forgery detection technique based on discrete cosine transform and cellular automata

    Gulnawaz Gani and Fasel Qadir. A robust copy-move forgery detection technique based on discrete cosine transform and cellular automata. Journal of Information Security and Applications , 54:102510, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Lightweight and high-precision network for image copy-move forgery detection

    Yuxuan Shi, Shaowei Weng, Lifang Yu, and Li Li. Lightweight and high-precision network for image copy-move forgery detection. IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 31:1409–1413, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Passive Forgery Detection Techniques:A Survey

    Wasan Fahad Mashaan and Ismail Taha Ahmed. Passive Forgery Detection Techniques:A Survey. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Automatic Control and Intelligent Systems (I2CACIS) , pages 321– 326, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Generate, Segment, and Refine: Towards Generic Manipulation Segmentation.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 34:13058–13065, 04 2020

    Peng Zhou, Bor-Chun Chen, Xintong Han, Mahyar Najibi, Abhinav Shrivastava, Ser-Nam Lim, and Larry Davis. Generate, Segment, and Refine: Towards Generic Manipulation Segmentation.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 34:13058–13065, 04 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    TruFor: Leveraging All-Round Clues for Trust- worthy Image Forgery Detection and Localization

    Fabrizio Guillaro, Davide Cozzolino, Avneesh Sud, Nicholas Dufour, and Luisa Verdoliva. TruFor: Leveraging All-Round Clues for Trust- worthy Image Forgery Detection and Localization. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20606–20615, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Detecting Recompression of JPEG Images via Periodicity Analysis of Compression Artifacts for Tampering Detection

    Yi-Lei Chen and Chiou-Ting Hsu. Detecting Recompression of JPEG Images via Periodicity Analysis of Compression Artifacts for Tampering Detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , 6(2):396–406, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Image splicing localization using PCA-based noise level estimation

    Hui Zeng, Yifeng Zhan, Xiangui Kang, and Xiaodan Lin. Image splicing localization using PCA-based noise level estimation. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76(4):4783–4799, Feb 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Detecting Image Splicing Based on Noise Level Inconsistency

    Heng Yao, Shuozhong Wang, Xinpeng Zhang, Chuan Qin, and Jinwei Wang. Detecting Image Splicing Based on Noise Level Inconsistency. Multimedia Tools and Applications , 76(10):12457–12479, May 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Lecun, L

    Y . Lecun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278– 2324, 1998

    1998

  5. [13]

    Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS’17, page 6000–6010, Red ...

    2017

  6. [14]

    ManTra-Net: Manipulation Tracing Network for Detection and Localization of Image Forgeries With Anomalous Features

    Yue Wu, Wael AbdAlmageed, and Premkumar Natarajan. ManTra-Net: Manipulation Tracing Network for Detection and Localization of Image Forgeries With Anomalous Features. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 9535–9544, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    PSCC-Net: Progressive Spatio-Channel Correlation Network for Image Manipula- tion Detection and Localization

    Xiaohong Liu, Yaojie Liu, Jun Chen, and Xiaoming Liu. PSCC-Net: Progressive Spatio-Channel Correlation Network for Image Manipula- tion Detection and Localization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32(11):7505–7517, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Hierarchical Fine-Grained Image Forgery Detection and Localization

    Xiao Guo, Xiaohong Liu, Zhiyuan Ren, Steven Grosz, Iacopo Masi, and Xiaoming Liu. Hierarchical Fine-Grained Image Forgery Detection and Localization. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3155–3165, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Alvarez, and Ping Luo

    Enze Xie, Wenhai Wang, Zhiding Yu, Anima Anandkumar, Jose M. Alvarez, and Ping Luo. SegFormer: Simple and Efficient Design for Semantic Segmentation with Transformers. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelz- imer, Y . Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors, Ad- vances in Neur...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Cond- Conv: Conditionally Parameterized Convolutions for Efficient Inference

    Brandon Yang, Gabriel Bender, Quoc V Le, and Jiquan Ngiam. Cond- Conv: Conditionally Parameterized Convolutions for Efficient Inference. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alch ´e-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing S...

    2019

  11. [19]

    MVSS-Net: Multi-View Multi-Scale Supervised Networks for Image Manipulation Detection

    Chengbo Dong, Xinru Chen, Ruohan Hu, Juan Cao, and Xirong Li. MVSS-Net: Multi-View Multi-Scale Supervised Networks for Image Manipulation Detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(3):3539–3553, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    R. E. Twogood and F. Graham Sommer. Digital Image Processing. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , 29(3):1075–1086, 1982

    1982

  13. [21]

    Non- local Neural Networks

    Xiaolong Wang, Ross Girshick, Abhinav Gupta, and Kaiming He. Non- local Neural Networks. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 7794–7803, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks

    Jie Hu, Li Shen, and Gang Sun. Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 7132–7141, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Defacto: Image and face manipulation dataset

    Ga ¨el MAHFOUDI, Badr TAJINI, Florent RETRAINT, Fr ´ed´eric MORAIN-NICOLIER, Jean Luc DUGELAY , and Marc PIC. Defacto: Image and face manipulation dataset. In 2019 27th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), pages 1–5, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Hsu and S.-F

    Y .-F. Hsu and S.-F. Chang. Detecting Image Splicing Using Geometry Invariants and Camera Characteristics Consistency. In International Conference on Multimedia and Expo , 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    CASIA Image Tampering Detection Evaluation Database

    Jing Dong, Wei Wang, and Tieniu Tan. CASIA Image Tampering Detection Evaluation Database. In 2013 IEEE China Summit and International Conference on Signal and Information Processing , pages 422–426, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Yates, Andrew Delgado, Daniel Zhou, Timothee Kheyrkhah, Jeff Smith, and Jonathan Fiscus

    Haiying Guan, Mark Kozak, Eric Robertson, Yooyoung Lee, Amy N. Yates, Andrew Delgado, Daniel Zhou, Timothee Kheyrkhah, Jeff Smith, and Jonathan Fiscus. MFC Datasets: Large-Scale Benchmark Datasets for Media Forensic Challenge Evaluation. In 2019 IEEE Winter Applications of Com...

    2019

Pith tools

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