mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

DocQT: Improving Document Forgery Localization Robustness via Diverse JPEG Quantization Tables

arXiv 2605.19688 ↗First posted 19 May 2026cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Document manipulation localization models achieve strong performance on public benchmarks yet fail to generalize to operational document workflows. We identify a critical and overlooked source of this gap: the mismatch between the narrow distribution of JPEG quantization tables used during training -restricted to standard libjpeg quality factors -and the heterogeneous compression profiles encountered in real-world insurance document pipelines. To isolate this factor, we conduct a controlled factorial study comparing two architectures with contrasting levels of quantization table awareness -FFDN [2] and Mesorch [20] -each trained under either standard quality factor augmentation (Standard-QT ) or operationally calibrated quantization tables sampled from DocQT, a quantization-table bank derived from a MAIF operational image corpus (Real-QT ), and evaluated under three recompression conditions. Training under Real-QT yields substantial localization gains on DocTamper [15] and significantly reduces the pixel-level false positive rate on authentic operational documents, but only for architectures that explicitly ingest the quantization table as input. The released DocQT quantization-table dataset and compression-reproduction material are directly available at https://github.com/Kyliroco/Improving-Document-Forgery-Localization-Robustness-via-Diverse-JPEG-Quantization-Tables. These results demonstrate that standard quality factor augmentation does not adequately proxy operational compression diversity, and that architectural choices explicitly conditioning on the quantization table provide a meaningful robustness advantage for real-world deployment.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.

Builds on

8 of 19 references.

References · 8

  1. 2019FUNSD: A Dataset for Form Understanding in Noisy Scanned Documentscited by 349
  2. 2021PSCC-Net: Progressive Spatio-Channel Correlation Network for Image Manipulation Detection and Localizationcited by 133
  3. 2022TruFor: Leveraging all-round clues for trustworthy image forgery detection and localizationcited by 130
  4. 2021Learning JPEG Compression Artifacts for Image Manipulation Detection and Localizationcited by 78
  5. 2024IMDL-BenCo: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Codebase for Image Manipulation Detection & Localizationcited by 42
  6. 2024Mesoscopic Insights: Orchestrating Multi-scale & Hybrid Architecture for Image Manipulation Localizationcited by 35
  7. 2025ForensicHub: A Unified Benchmark & Codebase for All-Domain Fake Image Detection and Localizationcited by 22
  8. 2023Toward Real Text Manipulation Detection: New Dataset and New Solutioncited by 20

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Efficient Document Tampering Localization with Multi-Level Discrepancy Features and Unified DCT-Quantization Embedding
  2. 2024EditScout: Locating Forged Regions from Diffusion-based Edited Images with Multimodal LLM
  3. 2024FakeShield: Explainable Image Forgery Detection and Localization via Multi-modal Large Language Models
  4. 2026AIForge-Doc: A Benchmark for Detecting AI-Forged Tampering in Financial and Form Documents
  5. 2026ForensicsTok: Forensics-Guided Tokenized Modeling for Image Tampering Localization
  6. 2026Towards Generalized Image Manipulation Localization via Score-based Model
  7. 2023Pixel-Inconsistency Modeling for Image Manipulation Localization
  8. 2025CLUE: Leveraging Low-Rank Adaptation to Capture Latent Uncovered Evidence for Image Forgery Localization