Off-the-shelf Vision Models Benefit Image Manipulation Localization
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, Ocean University of China · Southwest Jiaotong University
Abstract
Image manipulation localization (IML) and general vision tasks are typically treated as two separate research directions due to the fundamental differences between manipulation-specific and semantic features. In this paper, however, we bridge this gap by introducing a fresh perspective: these two directions are intrinsically connected, and general semantic priors can benefit IML. Building on this insight, we propose a novel trainable adapter (named ReVi) that repurposes existing off-the-shelf general-purpose vision models (e.g., image generation and segmentation networks) for IML. Inspired by robust principal component analysis, the adapter disentangles semantic redundancy from manipulation-specific information embedded in these models and selectively enhances the latter. Unlike existing IML methods that require extensive model redesign and full retraining, our method relies on the off-the-shelf vision models with frozen parameters and only fine-tunes the proposed adapter. The experimental results demonstrate the superiority of our method, showing the potential for scalable IML frameworks.
Figures & tables
| Method | CASIAv1 |
|---|---|
| PSCC (CVPR’22) [ 27 ] | 28.83 |
| EVP (CVPR’23) [ 25 ] | 36.56 |
| Mesorch (AAAI’25) [ 62 ] | 32.09 |
| LDM w. Full FT | 29.75 |
| LDM w. LoRA | 33.17 (+ 3.42) |
| LDM w. ReVi | 39.61 (+ 9.86) |
| Methods | Pre-trained protocol | Fine-tuned protocol | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CASIAv1 | Columbia | Coverage | NIST16 | IMD20 | Average | CASIAv1 | Columbia | Coverage | NIST16 | IMD20 | Average | |
| Dedicated methods | ||||||||||||
| PSCC-Net (CVPR’22) [ 27 ] | 28.83 | 12.23 | 13.35 | 21.20 | 16.49 | 18.42 | 56.20 | 94.38 | 48.55 | 64.14 | 43.78 | 61.41 |
| TruFor (CVPR’23) [ 10 ] | 23.49 | 38.76 | 14.91 | 21.06 | 17.10 | 23.06 | 40.80 | 88.03 | 59.04 | 63.85 | 42.24 | 58.79 |
| EVP (CVPR’23) [ 25 ] | 36.56 | 29.06 | 26.67 | 23.75 | 20.44 | 27.30 | 50.00 | 93.89 | 50.97 | 77.60 | 45.79 | 63.65 |
| IML-ViT (Arxiv’23) [ 31 ] | 28.19 | 60.61 | 19.86 | 24.76 | 12.95 | 29.27 | 66.28 | 96.80 | 58.14 | 80.65 | 53.21 | 71.02 |
| Backbone | Adapter | CASIA1 | Columbia | Coverage | NIST16 | IMD20 | Average | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | ||
| TinySAM w. | Convolution Modules | 64.84 | 29.68 | 70.75 | 43.31 | 55.90 | 11.49 | 65.18 | 26.67 | 57.97 | 14.48 | 62.93 | 25.13 |
| ReVi | 70.25 | 38.79 | 77.02 | 55.41 | 61.27 | 21.35 | 63.04 | 24.00 | 59.39 | 16.24 | 66.19 | 31.16 | |
| SegFormer w. | Convolution Modules | 66.29 | 31.13 | 79.70 | 59.30 | 58.24 | 16.00 | 64.79 | 26.70 | 63.03 | 20.92 | 66.41 | 30.81 |
| ReVi | 82.03 | 42.73 | 83.62 | 60.25 | 72.31 | 28.93 | 75.94 | 28.73 | 78.49 | 26.20 | 78.48 | 37.37 | |
| Placement | CASIA1 | Columbia | Coverage | NIST16 | IMD20 | Average | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | |
| En. + De. | 66.74 | 31.03 | 79.54 | 58.93 | 63.47 | 23.31 | 62.17 | 20.04 | 60.09 | 16.55 | 66.40 | 29.97 |
| De. | 66.50 | 29.54 | 82.48 | 63.17 | 66.61 | 27.02 | 62.91 | 18.58 | 60.29 | 16.12 | 67.76 | 30.89 |
| En. | 70.25 | 38.79 | 77.02 | 55.41 | 61.27 | 21.35 | 63.04 | 24.00 | 59.39 | 16.24 | 66.19 | 31.16 |
| Deviation | CASIA1 | Columbia | Coverage | NIST16 | IMD20 | Average | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | |
| DCT | 67.90 | 33.40 | 81.80 | 63.96 | 60.15 | 17.95 | 63.30 | 21.72 | 58.82 | 14.26 | 66.39 | 30.26 |
| DCPM | 66.63 | 31.26 | 76.12 | 52.25 | 59.86 | 17.26 | 62.86 | 20.89 | 58.14 | 13.47 | 64.72 | 27.03 |
| Ours | 70.25 | 38.79 | 77.02 | 55.41 | 61.27 | 21.35 | 63.04 | 24.00 | 59.39 | 16.24 | 66.19 | 31.16 |
| Setting | CASIA1 | Columbia | Coverage | NIST16 | IMD20 | Average | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | |
| (Frozen) TinySAM wo. pretrained weights w. ReVi | 59.61 | 17.96 | 70.24 | 43.84 | 58.35 | 17.04 | 59.91 | 17.40 | 59.23 | 14.67 | 61.47 | 22.18 |
| (Unfrozen) TinySAM wo. pretrained weights w. ReVi | 65.48 | 30.90 | 76.78 | 55.21 | 57.98 | 14.87 | 65.31 | 26.08 | 60.08 | 17.44 | 65.13 | 28.90 |
| TinySAM w. ReVi | 70.25 | 38.79 | 77.02 | 55.41 | 61.27 | 21.35 | 63.04 | 24.00 | 59.39 | 16.24 | 66.19 | 31.16 |
| Method | CASIAv1 | NIST16 | IMD20 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | AUC | F1 | |
| LDM w. Full FT | 65.73 | 29.75 | 61.57 | 19.34 | 58.55 | 13.87 |
| LDM w. LoRA | 67.84 | 33.17 | 60.44 | 16.22 | 58.43 | 15.91 |
| LDM w. ReVi | 71.80 | 39.61 | 64.96 | 18.47 | 62.70 | 15.36 |
| SegFormer w. Full FT | 77.86 | 36.45 | 76.41 | 28.04 | 74.57 | 21.28 |
| SegFormer w. LoRA | 79.89 | 39.17 | 77.36 | 28.32 | 76.98 | 23.07 |
| Method | Frozen | Trainable | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSCC-Net [ 27 ] | 0 | 3.668 | 100.00 |
| TruFor [ 10 ] | 0.557 | 66.562 | 99.17 |
| EVP [ 25 ] | 0 | 64.521 | 100.00 |
| IML-ViT [ 31 ] | 0 | 91.729 | 100.00 |
| ACBG [ 26 ] | 0 | 51.798 | 100.00 |
| Sparse-ViT [ 44 ] | 0 | 50.344 | 100.00 |
| Distortion | Method | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sparse-ViT [ 44 ] | Mesorch [ 62 ] | Ours | |
| No Distortion | 75.99 | 82.61 | 88.52 |
| Blur ( ) | 75.04 | 79.34 | 85.72 |
| Blur ( ) | 69.53 | 62.57 | 85.65 |
| Compress ( ) | 75.77 | 82.38 | 84.30 |
| Compress ( ) | 74.35 | 80.43 | 83.39 |
Image Forgery Localization
Image forgery localization identifies manipulated or AI-generated regions in images, often alongside image-level authenticity detection.
See all 79 papers