Organizations: Beijing Electronic Science and Technology Institute, Beijing 100070, China · the Computer Engineering College, Jimei University, Xiamen 361021, China · the State Key Laboratory of Integrated Service Network, Xidian University, Xi’an 710071, China · the CAS Key Laboratory of Electro-magnetic Space Information, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
Copy-move forgery detection aims at detecting duplicated regions in a suspected forged image, and deep learning based copy-move forgery detection methods are in the ascendant. These deep learning based methods heavily rely on synthetic training data, and the performance will degrade when facing new tasks. In this paper, we propose a Transformer-style copy-move forgery detection network named as CMFDFormer, and provide a novel PCSD (Pooled Cube and Strip Distillation) continual learning framework to help CMFDFormer handle new tasks. CMFDFormer consists of a MiT (Mix Transformer) backbone network and a PHD (Pluggable Hybrid Decoder) mask prediction network. The MiT backbone network is a Transformer-style network which is adopted on the basis of comprehensive analyses with CNN-style and MLP-style backbones. The PHD network is constructed based on self-correlation computation, hierarchical feature integration, a multi-scale cycle fully-connected block and a mask reconstruction block. The PHD network is applicable to feature extractors of different styles for hierarchical multi-scale information extraction, achieving comparable performance. Last but not least, we propose a PCSD continual learning framework to improve the forgery detectability and avoid catastrophic forgetting when handling new tasks. Our continual learning framework restricts intermediate features from the PHD network, and takes advantage of both cube pooling and strip pooling. Extensive experiments on publicly available datasets demonstrate the good performance of CMFDFormer and the effectiveness of the PCSD continual learning framework.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of CMFDFormer and PCSD continual learning.
Fig. 2: Channel FC, Cycle FC ( SH×SW of 3×1 with the dilation rate as 1 ) and dilated Cycle FC ( SH×SW of 3×1 with the dilation rate as 2 ).
Fig. 3: Cube pooling and strip pooling in PCSD.
TABLE I: Backbone and PHD step-by-step F1-score analyses on BESTI.
Fig. 4: F1-score and model efficiency of ResNet50+PHD, CycleMLP-B3+PHD, MiT-B3+PHD on BESTI testing images and CoMoFoD subset2.
Variant
Train dataset
CL dataset
Test dataset
F1-score
USCISI
-
USCISI
0.698
USCISI
-
BESTI
0.518
ResNet50
BESTI
-
USCISI
0.276
+
BESTI
-
BESTI
0.863
PHD
USCISI
BESTI
USCISI
0.630 (-0.068)
USCISI
BESTI
BESTI
0.692 (+0.174)
TABLE II: PCSD Continual learning analyses on the synthetic datasets.
Distillation method
USCISI → BESTI
BESTI → USCISI
Mean F1-score
Mean F1-score
Strip pooling
0.868
0.875
Cube pooling
0.870
0.874
PCSD
0.872
0.878
TABLE III: Mean F1-score of CMFDFormer after Continual Learning on USCISI and BESTI datasets.
Method
USCISI F1-score
BESTI F1-score
LiJ
0.399
0.360
Cozzolino
0.169
0.273
LiY
0.210
0.395
BusterNet
0.464
0.421
CMSDNet
0.692
0.429
SelfDM-SA+PS+CRF
0.346
0.831
TABLE IV: Comparisons on USCISI and BESTI.
Method
Train dataset
Finetune / CL dataset
USCISI
BESTI
CoMoFoD-subset2
CASIA-subset2
COVERAGE-subset2
CMSDNet
USCISI
-
0.692
0.483
0.475
0.772
CoMoFoD-subset1
0.193 (-0.499)
0.677 (+0.194)
CASIA-subset1
0.194 (-0.498)
0.555 (+0.080)
COVERAGE-subset1
0.331 (-0.361)
0.743 (-0.029)
BESTI
-
0.831
0.506
0.475
0.803
SelfDM-SA
CoMoFoD-subset1
0.495 (-0.336)
0.678 (+0.172)
TABLE V: F1-score analyses of deep learning based method finetuning or continual learning.
Method
CoMoFoD-subset2 F1-score
CASIA-subset2 F1-score
COVERAGE subset2 F1-score
COVERAGE-subset3 FAR
LiJ
0.437
0.052
0.712
0.760
Cozzolino
0.424
0.203
0.629
0.360
LiY
0.509
0.279
0.680
0.520
BusterNet
0.525
0.420
0.721
0.880
CMSDNet
0.483
0.475
0.772
1.000
SelfDM-SA+PS+CRF
0.506
0.475
0.803
0.960
TABLE VI: Comparisons on CoMoFoD subset2, CASIA subset2, COVERAGE subset2 and subset3.
Fig. 5: F1-scores (y-axis) on CoMoFoD subset2 under attacks (x-axis).
Fig. 6: Visual comparison on CoMoFoD-subset2.
Fig. 7: Visual comparison on CASIA-subset2 and COVERAGE-subset2.
Marmara University, Department of Computer Engineering, Istanbul, TURKEY · Loyola University Chicago, Department of Computer Science, Chicago, USA · Biruni University, Department of Computer Engineering, Istanbul, TURKEY