PROGRESS REPORT

ON
A STUDY ON COPY-MOVE FORGERY DETECTION
TECHNIQUES IN IMAGES

SUBMITTED BY
AMARTYA RANA - 2016UIT2586 ; JATIN NAGPAL - 2016UIT2567

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Dr. Ankita Bansal

NETAJI SUBHASH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

1. INTRODUCTION

In present day, digital media has become an important part of our lives. Also accessing and sharing
information is very easy with digital media nowadays, thus it plays a significant role in a variety of fields
and various technologies. Similarly, various image processing softwares and tools are available in the
market to enhance or edit these images to look as required. As Softwares for image editing are easily
available nowadays, image forgery has become a very common thing. And from one of the many forgeries,
Copy-Move forgery is a forgery technique in which a region of image is copied and pasted in nearly
matching area in order to hide a particular part of that image. This might be done in order to hide or add
certain feature or object in the image which changes the integrity of that image.
It is very crucial to identify Forged images from the original ones as one of the most important fields
where digital images are used as Forensic studies and Law enforcement where images are considered
as authentic proofs or have a purpose.

The various Image forgeries types are:

Image Retouching: This forgery technique is less harmful than other techniques since the final
forged image is not very different from the original one but with just minor enhancements, used to make
the object look more attractive. Thus retouching is just like polishing of an image in which a retoucher
focuses on adjusting various other elements of an image .

Image 1. Retouching an Image ; Source google

Image splicing: This forgery technique is more harmful than the one mentioned above (Retouching) and is
simple to do. The image is forged by using elements or objects from different images to form a single image i.e.
multiple images are selected and in a way merged together.

Image 2. Different images used to perform image splicing ; Source google

Copy-Move Attack: This forgery technique is a difficult and a commonly used forgery technique. The
image is forged by extracting a specific region of the original image and using it again in nearly matching
area in order to hide a particular part of that image or add extra feature to it. Thus changes the information
conveyed by the image completely.

IMAGE 3. Before and after Copy-Move forgery ; Source google

On the other hand, various different techniques have already been devised, so that we can easily distinguishing
the forged image from the original ones. These detection techniques can be divided into following types as
shown in Fig1 :

FIGURE 1. Types of authentication techniques

Active detection which requires prior information about the original image. Most of the techniques in this
type work when images are already pre-processed such as with watermarking or digital signature embedding
which limits their application.

Passive detection which doesn’t require any pre-processed image information to detect whether it’s
forged or not. It is based on assumptions that even though we cannot spot the tampered image from the
original image with naked eyes but it would likely to alter some other statistics, which then are used to identify
the real image.
In this paper, we focused on “Copy-Move forgery” (CMF) only and did a Study on different CMF detection
techniques worked upon from 2013 – 2019. Here, we answered few RQ’s by comparing different techniques
that have been used to detect CMF, state the benefits we are getting out of those techniques and find any
limitation that can’t be solved with all the available techniques and are still needed to be solved.
Here we also focused on one of the most important technique named : SIFT (Scale Invariant
Feature Transform) which was used and researched upon in various papers in last 7 years and
researched about it in depth in order to implement it and find areas where more development
could be made in this particular algorithm. This study would also then help to find and fill up gaps (if
any) in the Copy-Move forgery detection field, which then would help us to give suggestions on the areas
where further investigation can be done. In this study we also try to find information about the effect of these
researched techniques in real life and how it really help us. Thus, with this paper we can give the readers an
idea about the development in the area of “Copy-Move forgery Detection techniques” and help them
understand the topic to the best of our knowledge.

2. MOTIVATION

Nowadays, digital images are used in approximate every sector, in one way or the other. For example, images are
used in Forensic and Medical Studies, act as an evidence in court cases, used to share and store information, used
in Artificial intelligence, etc. But with the available technologies it's very easy to manipulate these images and
create forged images which then destroy the whole purpose of using digital images. Thus, it’s very important to
know the integrity of images before using it.

“Copy-Move forgery” is one of the most used forgery done on images when compared with other forgeries as a
greater number of tools are available to do it and it can totally invert the information which the images were
supposed to provide us with. In “Copy-Move forgery” a particular section of an image is copied and pasted at
some other place in the same image in order to add or hide an object presented in the image.

In this paper we studied the techniques developed to identify “Copy-Move forgery” in images in the last few
years and answered various research questions and in addition compared all those techniques on various factors
and try to provide the readers with a clearer understanding about each technique and their advantages and
disadvantages all together. This paper also helps one to see the development done in this sector in the past years
as we covered all the techniques available to us to the best of our knowledge.

While reading about CMFD techniques one needed to visit a lot of sites and read various papers to get basic
information on the topic and thus we aim to provide brief information on everything available in this single paper
in order to save time and efforts by answering basic questions that arises while reading about the topic in genera
3. METHODOLOGY

In this paper we studied various CMFD techniques with the help of research papers written in the last few years
and to complete the paper we followed the steps showed in following figure:

FIGURE 2. Methodology of Paper

1. Since Copy-Move forgery is a very crucial problem nowadays as most of the things are turning digital now
and thus makes its detection a very important topic to be researched upon. And for that a thorough research
was done to see what we need to do to in this paper to make our contribution towards the field and this was
achieved by reading various research papers and articles and then providing people with better understanding
on the topic and new suggestions or improvements in the field of forgery detection.

2. After getting the motivation to work on the topic, we decided upon the research question (RQ’s) which will
be answered in the paper for the readers and for that all the doubts and questions that rose in our minds while
studying about the topic were noted down and then cumulated. The most important and informative RQ’s
were selected to be researched upon and later answered in the paper
3. Researching for RQ’s was a difficult task as we downloaded and read all the papers available on the topic
“ Copy-Move forgery detection techniques” on various sites like: IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, Google
scholar, etc. from which we gathered data that we required for each of our RQ.

4. There were various papers with similar information in them so we selected only those research papers which
provided us with new information or used a different technique to identify CMF and rest all papers were
excluded for researching.

5. After gathering data for each RQ everything is drafted correctly in a way it explains the respective topic in
an easy language so that a beginner can also understand about it.

RQ# Question Result

Shows different data sets available

What different data sets are used for “Copy- and used to check the integrity of the
RQ1
Move Forgery detection”? detection technique used in various
papers.

Shows which all parameters are used

What are the different performance measures and adopted by researchers to check
RQ2
used in different papers? quality of different forgery detection
techniques.

What are the techniques that can be Tells which all different techniques
RQ3 implemented if the image is rotated? available can be applied on images
which are rotated and forgered later.

Tells the year in which most

publications were made on the topic
RQ4 In what year the publication rates were high? thus, more development in the field
took place.

Shows how these two techniques are

Comparison between SIFT and SURF different than others and which
RQ5 technique. technique is good for what purpose.

Tells how working of techniques are

A performance analysis on key points and
different when based on key point
RQ6 block based techniques.
search and bock based search
algorithm.
 4. WORK TILL DATE
Till now (Oct. 11 2019) we are able to answer 5 RQ’s which are:

1. Which data sets are used for copy move forgery detection?
2. What are the performance measures used in different studies?
3. In what are the publications rates were high.
4. What are techniques that can be implemented if the image is rotated?
5. Compare SIFT and SURF technique.
6. Run a performance analysis on key points and block based tech
7. What are the techniques that are most us
 5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In this section we represent the data we obtained for our RQ’s and answer each of them.

5.1 What different data sets are used for “Copy-Move Forgery detection”?

Different datasets available and used for CMFD are:

a. MICC-F220 : This dataset works for images having Rotation, Translation, Scaling or mixture of all.
b. FAU : This dataset works for images having JPEG compression, Rotation, Scaling.
c. MICC-F600 : This dataset works for images having Rotation, Translation, Scaling or mixture of all.
d. MICC-F2000 : This dataset works for images having Rotation, Translation, Scaling or mixture of all.
e. CoMoFoD : This dataset works for images having Rotation, Translation, Scaling, Distortion, JPEG
compression
f. GRIP : This dataset works for Rotation and Scaling
g. SBU-CM16 : This dataset works for Rotation, blurring noise addition, JPEG compression
h. CASIA : This dataset is used for splicing forgery detection. Its latest version CASIA v2.0 is a widely
used dataset for CMFD

N
DATASET NAME IMAGE SIZE TYPES OF ATTACKS
O.

Rotation, Translation, Scaling or

MICC-F220 722x48 ; 800x60 mixture of all. 220

JPEG compression, Rotation, 48

FAU 420x300 3888x2592 Scaling.
;
Rotation, Translation, Scaling or
600
MICC-F600 800x533 3888x259 mixture of all.
;
Rotation, Translation, Scaling or
MICC-F2000 2048x15 mixture of all. 2000
36
Rotation, Translation,
COMOFOD 512x512 3000x200 260
Scaling, Distortion, JPEG
;
compression.
GRIP 768x102 Rotation and Scaling. 160
4
Rotation, blurring noise
SBU-CM16 800x580 240
addition, JPEG compression.
CASIA v2.0 240×160 ; 900×600 5123
TABLE 1. Types of Datasets available.
Table below shows which dataset is used in which Research paper:

Name of Dataset Papers

MICC-F220 CMF1, CMF4, CMF6, CMF8, CMF12, CMF14,

COVERAGE CMF10, CMF16

MICC-F600 CMF1, CMF3, CMF7,

MICC-F2000 CMF1, CMF7,

CoMoFoD CMF1, CMF2, CMF5, CMF9, CMF10

CASIA CMF11, CMF15,

GRIP CMF13,

TABLE 2. Datasets used in various Papers

5.2 What are the different performance measures used in different papers?

Different performance measures used in CMFD techniques are:

a. True Positive Rate(TP) : This tells how many times a technique give result as True when it
was actually True.
b. True Negative Rate(TN) : This tells how many times a technique give result as False when it
was actually False.
c. False Positive Rate(FP) : This tells how many times a technique give result as True when it
was actually False.
d. False Negative Rate(FN) : This tells how many times a technique give result as False when it
was actually True.
e. Precision : This tells how many True results were given when they were False too
sometimes. Formula= TP/(TP+FP)
f. Recall : This tells how many False results were given when they were True too
sometimes. Formula=TP/(TP+FN)
g. Accuracy : This tells how many correct responses were given in total for all
True and False. Formula=TP+TN/(TP+TN+FP+FN)
Name of Parameters Papers

CMF1 , CMF6 ,
Recall CMF10,CMF12,CMF15,CMF19,CMF20,CMF21,CMF22

Fall-out CMF1 , CMF6 , CMF10,CMF12,CMF21,CMF2

Accuracy CMF4,CMF5 , CMF6 ,CMF10,CMF11,CMF23

F1-score CMF1, CMF7,CMF15

Precision CMF8,CMF15,CMF19,CMF20,CMF22,CMF23

Sensitivity CMF4,CMF11

Max Ratio CMF13,

Specificity CMF6 ,CMF11

True alarm rate CMF17

TABLE 3. Different parameters used.

5.3 What are the techniques that can be implemented if the image is rotated?
A. Speeded-Up Robust Features extraction (SURF)

SURF initially was presented by “Bay et al” [18]. It is used to identify images with rotation and
scale invariant forgeries and thus had respective detectors and a descriptor. SURF is considered to
be better method in terms of robustness, distinctiveness and repeatability. SURF is popular because
it has faster computation time as compared to other schemes. It works by detection of interest points
from the image along with interest point descriptors. [ACMF1]

a) Interest Point Detection b) Feature Matching

c) Orientation Assignment d) Descriptor Generation

e) Scale Space Representation

i. Combination of SURF with DWT

In this section, we are showing a new algorithm which is a combination of SURF with DWT. The
algorithm is as follows:

• DWT is applied on an image given to us for testing and is decomposed.

• The decomposed image is divided into four sub-parts: HL, LL, HH, LH.

• The LL part of the image has most of the image information in it.

• Then SURF is then applied on the LL part in order to obtain its descriptors and key points.

• Finally we find matches between descriptors. It can be obtained by using the method named as
Best Bin First Method.

• In this method single linkage clustering is used, along with ward linkage and average linkage in
order to get the forged area.

ii. Combination of SURF with DyWT

There are many positive results obtained using SURF with DWT when compared to simple SURF
technique alone. Thus we decided to replace DWT with DyWT . Thus a new algorithm is proposed
in this section where SURF will be combined with DyWT. The process is somehow similar to the
above algorithm except the fact that DyWT is used instead of DWT. Based on the literature
reviews:

• DyWT performs better when it analyse the data.

• DyWT is based on shift invariant and so while using DyWT on sample it doesn’t lower the
quality of the image at every iteration of algorithm. It keeps the information intact.

• Then SURF is applied, which is used to extract corresponding descriptors and key points.

• Finally we find matches between these descriptor vectors in order to identify the duplicate region.

• The working of the process is same as compared to the process where SURF was combined with
DWT. The only difference is that here we are using DyWT in place of DWT and rest remains the
same.

B. BRISK Features

This feature detects, then describes all the key points. After description then it matches various key
points without complete information on camera dimensions and scene. In case of SURF technique
and SIFT technique (methods which are known and established) algorithms, the BRISK feature
technique proves to be faster in execution of matching patterns. This feature is dependant on
modifiable sampling pattern for high performance. It is used for less computational power
applications or various real-time constraints [6].

C. Harris Corner Point Features

It uses interest point detectors [12][13] which is used in computer vision security applications and
the image forgery detection system[14]. These features can withstand different transformations
and changes in an image.
.

D. KAZE Features

It is a 2D feature description and detection method. For identification of feature points, Hessian
matrix is usually used for locating those feature points. It operates on a non linear space. If the
point which is detected has a value greater than others then it is taken as a key point. Then vector
description is done and in this step we require proper orientation. Proper orientation is done by
local structuring of feature points. Then the final key points are computed in order to obtain a
rotation and scale invariant descriptor. In the end forgery is detected in the image [10][11].

E. SIFT Features

The full form of SIFT is “Scale Invariant Feature Transform”. It works as an image descriptor and
helps in image-based matching and image recognition. And was developed by David Lowe
(1999, 2004). SIFT and similar image descriptors are used for various other purposes in computer
vision when it comes to the view-based object recognition and  point matching between different
views in a 3-D scene. And the SIFT descriptor remains same even if rotations, translations and
scaling transformations are applied on an image. The SIFT descriptor is claimed to be very useful
 for and object recognition and image matching under real-world conditions.

5.4 In what year the publication rates were high?

The contributions are as follows:

• The publications were surveyed on CMFD from the year 2015 to 2019.
• This paper has addressed the numerous forgery techniques, limitations, important results
and tells the direction in which further development can be done in future.
• It focuses on image’s, copy-move forgery datasets. It shows the comparison in the
performance of different datasets in different papers.
• Some of the issues are being identified in CMFD for further research.

Publications

57

43
41

32
30

20

9
5 6 5

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Journals Conference

GRAPH 1 . No. of Publications in previous years.

 5.5 Do a comparison between SIFT and SURF technique.

Feature matching and detection are used in object retrieval, object tracking and image registration.
There are various approaches which are used to match and detect features such as SURF
(Speeded up Robust Feature), SIFT (Scale Invariant Feature Transform), ORB and FAST. SURF
and SIFT are most useful approaches to match and detect features. In this paper, the comparison
between SURF and SIFT are discussed. The following points demonstrate the comparison:
• SURF is better in blur, rotation invariant and warp transform as compared to SIFT.
• SIFT is better in different scale images as compared to SURF.
• SURF is 3 times faster than SIFT because of the usage of box filter and integral image.
• SIFT and SURF both are good in illuminating changes in the images.

Comparing SIFT and SURF on the basis of time taken by both techniques in identifying that the
images considered are similar. Following are the images:

a.Original image b. Rotated 90º c. Scaled image

d
. Blur image e. Hue image f. Saturated image
 g, Wrapped image h. Noise image

Time taken for extraction

IMAGE Feature extraction in 1 Feature extraction in 2
and matching (ms)

Image a and b 3001 3043 5235.25

Image a and c 3001 823 3511.85

Image a and d 3001 862 3626.46

Image a and e 3001 823 4075.62

Image a and f 3001 2164 4368.75

Image a and g 3001 1567 4263.84

Image a and h 3001 3315 5223.40

Column 1 Tells which two images were considered.

Column 2 Tells how many features were extracted from first image.
Column 3 Tells how many features were extracted from second image.
Column 4 Tells time taken by SIFT algorithm to extract and match the two imag
 Time taken for extraction
IMAGE Feature extraction in 1 Feature extraction in 2
and matching (ms)

Image a and b 878 886 1354.27

Image a and c 878 325 9889.48

Image a and d 878 356 1008.99

Image a and e 878 895 1215.27

Image a and f 878 225 973.85

Image a and g 878 1767 935.15

Image a and h 878 992 1279.22

Column 1 Tells which two images were considered.

Column 2 Tells how many features were extracted from first image.
Column 3 Tells how many features were extracted from second image.
Column 4 Tells time taken by SURF algorithm to extract and match the two images.

SIFT and SURF can also be compared on various other factors as shown in table below: -

Algorithm Rotation Illumination Scale Blur Warp RGB Noise Time Cost

SIFT Good Good Better Good Good Good Good

SURF Better Good Good Better Better Better Better

Image Features ACCURACY PRECISION RECALL FALSE POITIVE RATE

SIFT 98.64 98.20 99.09 3.36

SURF 97.27 97.27 97.27 0

 5.6 Run a performance analysis on key points and block based techniques.

Key point-based CMFD techniques

SIFT introduced by Lowe [39] and SURF [40]
key point features
are widely used in CMFD. SIFT computation
[17] is based on the
following steps: scale-space extrema detection,
key point
localisation, orientation assignment and key point
descriptors.
SURF has a faster matching speed than SIFT
due to Hessian
matrix's approximation and integral image. An
integral image is
Key point-based CMFD techniques
SIFT introduced by Lowe [39] and SURF [40]
key point features
are widely used in CMFD. SIFT computation
[17] is based on the
following steps: scale-space extrema detection,
key point
localisation, orientation assignment and key point
descriptors.
SURF has a faster matching speed than SIFT
due to Hessian
matrix's approximation and integral image. An
integral image is
Key point-based CMFD techniques
SIFT introduced by Lowe [39] and SURF [40]
key point features
are widely used in CMFD. SIFT computation
[17] is based on the
following steps: scale-space extrema detection,
key point
localisation, orientation assignment and key point
descriptors.
SURF has a faster matching speed than SIFT
due to Hessian
matrix's approximation and integral image. An
integral image is
Key point-based CMFD techniques
SIFT introduced by Lowe [39] and SURF [40]
key point features
are widely used in CMFD. SIFT computation
[17] is based on the
following steps: scale-space extrema detection,
key point
localisation, orientation assignment and key point
descriptors.
SURF has a faster matching speed than SIFT
due to Hessian
matrix's approximation and integral image. An
integral image is
Key point-based CMFD techniques
SIFT introduced by Lowe [39] and SURF [40]
key point features
are widely used in CMFD. SIFT computation
[17] is based on the
following steps: scale-space extrema detection,
key point
localisation, orientation assignment and key point
descriptors.
SURF has a faster matching speed than SIFT
due to Hessian
matrix's approximation and integral image. An
integral image is
1. Key point-based CMFD techniques

SURF [31] key point features and SIFT introduced by Lowe [28] are used in various CMFD. The following
steps are followed for SIFT computation [31]:
• Key point descriptors.
• Orientation Assignment
• Key point Localisation.
• Scale-space extrema detection

Matching speed is faster in SURF technique when compared to SIFT due to integral image and Hessian
matrix’s approximation. An image is formulated by the addition of the values between the origin and points.

1.1 SIFT and integrated CMFD methods based on SIFT

Key points from SIFT are derived and used for CMFD[17].Various images were collected from
various sources (majorly internet) for this experiment. SIFT descriptors are first derived and then
Euclidean distance is calculated between the descriptor vectors for matching extracted SIFT
descriptors. It is then observed that due to properties of SIFT (of rotation and scale invariant), the
method is also robust for forgeries in which scaling and rotation was done . Although it still isn’t
robust for detecting forgeries against small-size smooth regions and low signal-to-noise ratio and
needs to be improved.
.

1.2 SURF and integrated CMFD methods based on SURF

In [48], “SURF” we first extract descriptors from the duplicate or tampered image. Then the
descriptor’s subsets were matched. It was noticed that this method can prove to be fast and reliable in
case of images that are small in size. Although localization of forgery in the image is not done.
In [34], SURF can also be combined with Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) for “CMFD”. This
method is then applied on “Uncompressed color images database” (UCID). Co-efficients of DCT are
then checked for double JPEG compression effect. The extraction of features is done in the same
manner by using SURF and it was noticed that this method also is able to locate and detect the
forgeries in the tampered image. Although, the experiment was performed on a particular dataset
containing very few images only.
In [58], SURF was combined with Fourier–Mellin Transform (FMT) for CMFD. In this method
image is divided into flat regions and non-flat regions. Then, afterwards, in flat regions FMT is
applied and in non-flat regions SURF is applied to find duplicate regions. It was then observed that
the method cannot be used for images that are large in size as time taken by FMT for processing is
greater when compared to other techniques.
2. Block-based “CMFD” techniques

In block-based method we start by dividing the duplicate/forged image into non-overlapping or

overlapping blocks. After division of the image we do a robust extraction of features from each
and every block and then features are divided or arranged with the help of appropriate forgery pairs
and data structures. In this report, block-based methods are divided on the basis of, extraction of
block features into six different categories.

2.1 Methods based on Frequency domain

A coefficient based quantized DCT process is shown in [46]. In this report, forged regions
are identified by sorting the DCT coefficients lexicographically and by using shift vectors.
Due to the “DCT coefficient matching”, this process becomes robust against retouching,
compression and noise. However, for images that are tempered/forged by Rotating or
Scaling the copied blocks, aren’t detected by this method.
FMT for forgery detection is stated and used in [10]. Writers of the report claim that this
algorithm (based on FMT) can easily identify forgery in the tempered images even if the
tempered image is highly compressed, scaled or rotated and it also takes less time in
detection since instead of lexicographic sorting, counting bloom filters are used.

2.2 Methods based on Dimensionality reduction

Paper [45] used two robust features based on kernel PCA and DWT. Various natural
images were used in order to test this method. From the quantitative analysis it was
observed that in the uncompressed domain and noiseless domain, features based on PCA/
kernel PCA (KPCA) are outperformed by DWT in terms of recall and average precision.
Features based on KPCA, perform well in JPEG compression and noise.
In [15], extraction of singular valued features is done with the help of SVD by applying it
on each overlapping block. Also, K-d tree approach is used for feature matching.
However, this method isn’t suitable for images with JPEG compression because it results
in loss of image details in SVD.
In [48], geometric and algebraic invariant feature vectors are also obtained by using SVD.
For identifying similarities between each block pair, “Chebyshev” distance measure is
used. It was then concluded, that this method proved to be robust against Gaussian noise
(AWGN), additive white, blur and JPEG compression. However, rotation and scaling
operations were not detected by using this method.
In [50], for dimensional reduction DWT was applied in the image. And then, SVD is
applied to the fixed-sized overlapping blocks of a low-frequency wavelet

2.3 Methods based on Local binary pattern (LBP)

LBP is a grey-scale texture operator. Image texture’s spatial structure can be easily
described by this method. In [12], before dividing the overlapping circular blocks a low
pass filter is applied on the image. Rotation invariant features are extracted from each
block using uniform LBP and are also compared in order to decide whether the image is
forged or not. For testing, Photoshop tool was used and various images were collected
from the Internet to perform “copy-move forgery”. And the result told us that this method
 is robust against rotation, noise, compression and blurring. However, due to interpolation
error it failed to identify forgeries in the case of random region rotation.
In [36], local binary pattern features of multi-resolution with two, three and four types of
LBP operators are used. A database of 100 images is used to test this method. Database
was created from [34] and by personal collection. To speed up the algorithm k-d tree and
Lexicographical sorting are used in block matching. However, the time taken to process
high resolution images came out to be more in the method.
In [32], Center symmetric LBP (CSLBP) and Hessian points are combined. MICC- F220
images were used to test this method. This method proved to be invariant to illumination,
translation and scaling, due to combination of CSLBP and the Hessian points. However,
images with forgeries done by rotation or blur degradation weren’t detected by this
method. Although, by using blur-invariant and rotation features, these limitations can be
eliminated.
In [24], LBP is combined with steerable pyramid transform (SPT). CASIA v1.0 dataset is
used in order to test the process. SPT is applied to the chrominance component of
the image and extraction of features from each SPT sub-band is done by LBP. Finally, to
classify or check the integrity of the image SVM is used. Selection methods, namely,
LOGO and feature discriminant ratio are used to reduce the dataset dimension. However,
in this method localization of forgery is not done.

2.4 Methods based on Texture

In [45],from each block Texture features are found and matched . In terms of precision
versus execution time it is noticed that the best way is using statistical texture descriptor.
Also, in the case of images with forgery in small regions, edge histogram performed
better.
In [15], in order to produce the Gabor feature descriptor of each block, a Gabor filter with
different rotation angles, scaling factors and frequencies is used. However, tempered
images in which forged regions have undergone different geometric transformations,
resulted in under-performance of this method.

2.5 Methods based on Moment invariant

Moment invariant methods are set of features that are invariant to a geometric
transformation. A blur moment invariant is used in [51]. In the method used in the report,
the image is first separated into overlapping blocks and then 24 blur invariants are used to
represent each block up to seventh order, for creating feature vectors of 72 dimension. To
reduce the dimension of the block features, Principal component transformation (PCT) is
introduced in this process. Finally, with k-d tree, matching among the blocks is
performed. This method is robust against JPEG compression, noise and presence of blur
in images that are smaller in size. This is because of presence of PCT and blur moments.
However, due to large number of block features in images which are larger in size,
computational complexity increase when we use this method.

Due to sensitivity to various transformations “block-based CMFD techniques” hold a major drawback.
Also, due to the separation of the images into various non-overlapping and overlapping blocks, high
computational time is taken by the techniques. Generally, there is participation of each and every block in
extraction of features and phase matching. Size of the image affect these techniques ability to
detect/identify forgeries significantly. The size of the block and offset chosen for dividing an image also
brings the same problem.
When block-based techniques are compared to the key point- based techniques, it is observed that
performances of key point- based techniques are robust against various transformations and prove to be
better in computational complexity too.
In “key point-based technique” features size is relatively larger than those in “block-based techniques”,
but the key point derived from the features vector are generally small in magnitude when compared with a
block of the image. However, detection of forgeries in highly uniform areas are not possible with methods
based on “key point techniques”.

5.7 In what year the publication rates were high?

After going through all papers of 2015-2019, SIFT technique was the most applied technique
Either working as the only algorithm performing the copy move forgery detection or combining with other
algorithms like DWT or HSV etc.

Algorithm:

1) Space Scale Extrema Detection

In this step points which can be identified from different views are located. The most efficient
way is by using a  Gaussian space-scale function. The scale space is defined by (3).1 (x,y) is the
input image and G(x,y, 0") is the Gaussian function. L(x,y,O") = G(x,y, 0") * l(x,y) (3) Key-
points in the image are found by the Difference of Gaussian (DoG) technique. DoG is given by
(4). D(x,y, 0") = L(x,y, kO") - L(x,y, 0") (4) This function is compared with its eight neighbours
on the same scale and with nine neighbours up one scale and down one scale. It is a point of
extrema if it is minimum or maximum among all these values.

2) Key-point Localization

This stage eliminates those key-points which have poor contrast. This is done by applying the
Laplacian operator on the points found in the previous stage. If the value of this function lies
below a certain threshold then this value is excluded. This eliminates points of low contrast. There
is a large principle curvature across the edge but a small curvature in a perpendicular direction in
DoG function [2, 18]. The 2 x 2 Hessian matrix at the location is calculated and the ratio of the
largest to smallest Eigen vector obtained is calculated. If the difference be less than this ratio, that
particular key-point is eliminated.

3) Assignment of orientation

In this step every key-point is assigned an orientation based on the local image properties. The
steps are as follows:

a. Calculate the Gaussian smoothed image L by the scale function described above.
b. Calculate the magnitude gradient m and the orientation 8 as in (5) and (6).
m(x,y) = (L(x + I,y) -L(x _1,y))2 + (L(x,y + I) -L(x,y _1))2 (5) _ I L(X, y+ I)-L(x, y-I) 8(x, y) =
tan ) L(x+l,y)-L(x-I,y) (6)

c. An orientation histogram is formed from gradient orientations of sample points. Peaks in

hihistogram are located and using these peaks and any other peaks 0.8 times those of the
highest peak are used to create an orientation. It is possible that a key-point may be assigned
multiple orientations.

4) Key-point Descriptor

Key-point descriptors are also created by using the local gradient data used above. The gradient
information is rotated so as to align it with the orientation of the key point and then weighted by a
Gaussian function of variance 1.5*key-point scale [13]. This is used to create a set of histograms
over a square whose center is the key point. Usually a set of 16 histograms each with 8 elements
is used by the key point descriptors. This results in the feature vectors having 128 elements. These
feature vectors are then used to didentify possible objects in the digital image.

 Advantages:
1. SIFT descriptor is a classic approach, also the "original" inspiration for most of the
descriptors proposed later

2. It is more accurate than any other descriptors.

3. It is Rotation and scale invariant.

 Disadvantages:
1. The drawback is that it is mathematically complicated and computationally heavy.

2. SIFT is based on the Histogram of Gradients. That is, the gradients of each Pixel in the patch
need to be computed and these computations cost time.

3. It is not effective for low powered devices.

Insights 

1. It is found that only few papers have worked on the forgery having multiple forged regions and in
real, life a forger will perform multiple forgeries in a single photo which in result will fail most of
the techniques that are developed. The HSV Histogram based [cmf136] approach extracted features
successfully detects multiple duplicated region in the image but have some limitations in it which
can be worked upon. Applying SIFT only on region of interests rather than on whole image (which
will be time consuming). Reducing the computation time both for extraction the key-points as well
as to match them which is negligibly small. (cmf134) 

2. SIFT and SURF are iterative methods which are itself very time consuming Hashing techniques can
be applied to get the result in less time. Like in [74] Coherency sensitive hashing is used for
identifying and matching image patches. This method is faster than other iterative methods but if
the derived level of error is still not stable enough, the entire process is implemented again. So the
researchers’ community should put more emphasis on this type of methods. 

3. Soft computing techniques in CMFD are used in very few papers and report. Although, SIFT with
“Particle Swarm optimization” (PSO) is presented in [49]. Parameter values used for CMFD, are
generated automatically in PSO techniques. Determining the values of the decision parameters
helps in the decision-making phase of the algorithm and that is generally based on results of
experiments or the experience against number of tempered/forged images present. Therefore, Soft
computing techniques in CMFD can be used to enhance the decision making phase of the
algorithm.
6. REFERENCES

[CMF1] Badal Soni, Pradip K. Das, Dalton Meitei Thounaojam ; CMFD: a detailed review of block
based and key feature based techniques in image copy-move forgery detection ; 29th October 2017.
[CMF2] Dijana Tralic, Ivan Zupancic, Sonja Grgic, Mislav Grgic ; CoMoFoD - New Database
for Copy-Move Forgery Detection ; University of Zagreb, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering and Computing
Unska 3, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
[CMF3] Amanpreet Kaur, Savita Walia, Krishan Kumar ; Comparitive analysis of different
keypoint based copy- move forgery detection methods ; 2018 IEEE
[CMF4] Mariam Saleem, M,Qasim Altaf-L, Qaiser Chaudry ; A Comparative Analysis on
Pixel-Based Blind Cloning Techniques ; 2014 IEEE International Conference
[CMF5] Ye Zhu, Ramanathan Subramanian, Tian-Tsong Ng, Stefan Winkler, Rama Ratnam ;
COMPARISON OF HUMAN AND MACHINE PERFORMANCE FOR COPY-MOVE IMAGE
FORGERY
DETECTION INVOLVING SIMILAR BUT GENUINE OBJECTS ; ©2018 IEEE
[CMF6] Mohammad Farukh Hashmi, Aaditya R. Hambarde, Avinash G. Keskar ; Copy Move
Forgery Detection using DWT and SIFT Features ; ©2013 IEEE
[CMF7] Ava Pourkashani, Asadollah Shahbahrami, Babak Abad Fomani ; Copy Move Forgery
Detection using Histogram Quantization of Cross Power Spectrum ; © 2017 IEEE
[CMF8] Ashwini V. Malviya, Siddharth A. Ladhake ; Copy Move forgery detection using low
complexity feature extraction. ; 2015 IEEE UP Section Conference
[CMF9] Neetu Yadav, Rupal Kapdi ; Copy Move Forgery Detection using SIFT and GMM ;
2015 5th Nirma University International Conference.
[CMF10] Aniket Roy, Akhil Konda, Rajat Subhra Chakraborty ; COPY MOVE FORGERY
DETECTION WITH SIMILAR BUT GENUINE OBJECTS ; © 2017 IEEE
[CMF11] Ghulam Muhammad, Muneer H. Al-Hammadi, Muhammad Hussain, Anwar M. Mirza
and George Bebis ; Copy Move Image Forgery Detection Method Using Steerable Pyramid
Transform and Texture Descriptor ; ©2013 IEEE
[CMF12] Diaa M. Uliyan, Hamid A. Jalab, Ainuddin W. Abdul Wahab ; Copy Move Image
Forgery Detection Using Hessian and Center Symmetric Local Binary Pattern ; 2015 IEEE
Conference on Open Systems. [CMF13] Davide Cozzolino, Giovanni Poggi, Luisa Verdoliva ;
COPY-MOVE FORGERY DETECTION BASED ON PATCHMATCH ; ©2014 IEEE
[CMF14] Prajwal Pralhad Panzade, Choudhary Shyam Prakash, Sushila Maheshkar ; Copy-Move
Forgery Detection by Using HSV Preprocessing and Keypoint Extraction ;
[CMF15] Atefeh Shahroudnejad, Mohammad Rahmati, Copy-Move Forgery Detection in Digital
Images Using Affine-SIFT ; ©2016 IEEE
[CMF16] Copy-move Forgery Detection in the Presence of Similar but Genuine Objects
[CMF17] Comparative Study of Copy Move Forgery Detection Techniques
[CMF18] Copy-Move Forgery Detection based on SVD in Digital Image

[CMF19] Copy-Move Forgery Detection by Matching Triangles of Key points

[CMF20] Copy-Move Forgery Detection by Using HSV Preprocessing and Key point Extraction
[CMF21] Copy-move Forgery Detection in the Presence of Similar but Genuine Objects
[CMF22] Copy-Move Forgery Detection Using Color Space and Moment Invariants-Based Features
[CMF23] Copy-Move Forgery Detection Using Segmentation
[CMF24]
/