mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On the Effectiveness of Image Manipulation Detection in the Age of Social Media

arXiv 2304.09414 ↗First posted 19 Apr 2023cs.CVcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Image manipulation detection algorithms designed to identify local anomalies often rely on the manipulated regions being ``sufficiently'' different from the rest of the non-tampered regions in the image. However, such anomalies might not be easily identifiable in high-quality manipulations, and their use is often based on the assumption that certain image phenomena are associated with the use of specific editing tools. This makes the task of manipulation detection hard in and of itself, with state-of-the-art detectors only being able to detect a limited number of manipulation types. More importantly, in cases where the anomaly assumption does not hold, the detection of false positives in otherwise non-manipulated images becomes a serious problem. To understand the current state of manipulation detection, we present an in-depth analysis of deep learning-based and learning-free methods, assessing their performance on different benchmark datasets containing tampered and non-tampered samples. We provide a comprehensive study of their suitability for detecting different manipulations as well as their robustness when presented with non-tampered data. Furthermore, we propose a novel deep learning-based pre-processing technique that accentuates the anomalies present in manipulated regions to make them more identifiable by a variety of manipulation detection methods. To this end, we introduce an anomaly enhancement loss that, when used with a residual architecture, improves the performance of different detection algorithms with a minimal introduction of false positives on the non-manipulated data. Lastly, we introduce an open-source manipulation detection toolkit comprising a number of standard detection algorithms.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Apr 2023.

Builds on

14 of 64 references.

References · 14

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  2. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  3. 2015Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networkscited by 9,617
  4. 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,441
  5. 2018Image Super-Resolution Using Very Deep Residual Channel Attention Networkscited by 1,256
  6. 2018ESRGAN: Enhanced Super-Resolution Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 1,250
  7. 2019Real Image Denoising with Feature Attentioncited by 176
  8. 2018Learning Rich Features for Image Manipulation Detectioncited by 154
  9. 2018Fighting Fake News: Image Splice Detection via Learned Self-Consistencycited by 136
  10. 2018ForensicTransfer: Weakly-supervised Domain Adaptation for Forgery Detectioncited by 104
  11. 2017Image Splicing Localization Using A Multi-Task Fully Convolutional Network (MFCN)cited by 64
  12. 2017Autoencoder with recurrent neural networks for video forgery detectioncited by 10
2 more
  1. 2017UG^2: a Video Benchmark for Assessing the Impact of Image Restoration and Enhancement on Automatic Visual Recognitioncited by 7
  2. 2017Digital image splicing detection based on Markov features in QDCT and QWT domaincited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

2 papers.