A Novel Deep Learning Framework For Copy-Move Forgery Detection in Images

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/340000521
A novel deep learning framework for copy-move forgery detection in images
Article in Multimedia Tools and Applications · March 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s11042-020-08751-7
CITATIONS READS
11 2,018
10 authors, including:
Mohamed A. Elaskily Heba Elnemr

Electronics Research Institute (ERI) Electronics Research Institute
10 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS 30 PUBLICATIONS 271 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Ahmed Sedik Mohamed M. Dessouky

Kafrelsheikh University University of Jeddah
34 PUBLICATIONS 172 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 149 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
ECG signal compression View project
Forgery Detection View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed A. Elaskily on 19 March 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Multimedia Tools and Applications
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-08751-7
A novel deep learning framework for copy-move

forgery detection in images
Mohamed A. Elaskily 1,2 & Heba A. Elnemr 3 & Ahmed Sedik 4 &
Mohamed M. Dessouky 2,10 & Ghada M. El Banby 5 & Osama A. Elshakankiry 2,6 &
Ashraf A. M. Khalaf 7 & Heba K. Aslan 1 & Osama S. Faragallah 2,6 & Fathi E. Abd El-Samie 8,9
Received: 6 February 2019 / Revised: 25 December 2019 / Accepted: 17 February 2020
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract
In this era of technology, digital images turn out to be ubiquitous in a contemporary society
and they can be generated and manipulated by a wide variety of hardware and software
technologies. Copy-move forgery is considered as an image tampering technique that aims
to generate manipulated tampered images by concealing unwanted objects or reproducing
desirable objects within the same image. Therefore, image content authentication has
become an essential demand. In this paper, an innovative design for automatic detection
of copy-move forgery based on deep learning approaches is proposed. A Convolutional
Neural Network (CNN) is specifically designed for Copy-Move Forgery Detection
(CMFD). The CNN is exploited to learn hierarchical feature representations from input
images, which are used for detecting the tampered and original images. The extensive
experiments demonstrate that the proposed deep CMFD algorithm outperforms the tradi-
tional CMFD systems by a considerable margin on the three publicly accessible datasets:
MICC-F220, MICC-F2000, and MICC-F600. Furthermore, the three datasets are incorpo-
rated and joined to the SATs-130 dataset to form new combinations of datasets. An
accuracy of 100% has been achieved for the four datasets. This proves the robustness of
the proposed algorithm against a diversity of known attacks. For better evaluation, com-
parative results are included.
Keywords Copy-move forgery detection . Image authentication . Deep learning . Convolutional

neural networks . Tampered images
1 Introduction
Recently, videos and images have captured great importance, because they are the main source
of information. Images are used in many aspects to share information between different
* Mohamed A. Elaskily
Mohamed_elaskily@eri.sci.eg
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

recipients. They are utilized in various fields such as military operations, intelligence, evidence
in courts, social media, newspapers, media misinformation, defamation of famous characters,
and many other applications. Image authenticity may be affected by image tampering besides
the unguaranteed ways for image circulation. To secure the image communication process,
authentication techniques have been introduced. There are two categories of authentication:
active and passive authentication [8]. Active authentication is performed using techniques such
as digital image cryptography, digital signature, or embedding of a watermark in the original
content of the image before using it. In active authentication, the original content of the image
must be available to be compared with the test image [45]. Active authentication that is used in
security of color image steganography is related not only to data-embedding algorithms but
also to different payload partitioning techniques [28, 29]. In active authentication, a method of
separable data hiding in encrypted images has been proposed using compressive sensing and
discrete Fourier transform for ensuring recovery and providing a flexible payload [27]. In
passive authentication, the original content of the image is not available. The test image is
examined without any previous knowledge of the original content [48]. Typically, this type of
authentication is used in detecting digital image forgeries, because the original content of the
examined image is unavailable.
Detection of forgeries in digital images is an important issue. Forgery detection is
accomplished by searching for unusual features, properties or disorders as shreds of
evidence. Forgery detection operation is based on the homogeneity of the statistical,
geometrical, or physical properties of the original image, where this homogeneity is not
maintained in tampered images [30]. There are different types of digital image forgery
such as image splicing, image morphing, image retouching, image resampling, and finally
copy-move forgery [9]. Image splicing is performed by composing two or more images to
create a new image, which consists of objects taken from the basic images [38]. Image
morphing is another kind of image forgery generated by merging two different shapes
from different images to form a new shape [43]. Image retouching is carried out by
enhancing a scene or image to exhibit or hide some features as in coloring, lighting,
contrast enhancement, removing visible flaws on skin or materials, or background mod-
ification [41]. Image resampling is performed by changing the dimensions of an object or
more in an image to give another meaning to the recipients [23]. Copy-move forgery is
made by cloning a region or area from a specific location in an image and pasting it in
another location in the same image to hide or duplicate an object or more to give a fake
view [3]. Different types of digital image forgery are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Copy-move forgery is the most wide-spread type among digital image forgeries
because of its ease of implementation and difficulty to detect. Its detection difficulty
depends on its limited effect on the image. The cloned areas have the same features and
properties of the whole image; and hence the final copy-move tampered image has a
homogeneous context.
In this paper, a new, fast, easy, and efficient CMFD algorithm is configured and tested. The
proposed algorithm is based on using the CNN to develop a deep learning method to detect
copy-move forgeries in a fast and robust manner.
The contributions of the proposed algorithm may be summarized as follows:
1) Building a fast and efficient framework that contributes to the CMFD by increasing its
accuracy to detect the tampered images.
2) Decreasing the loss or misclassification of the copy-move forgery.
a) Image splicing: the left and middle images are original, while the right is the tampered image
b) Image morphing: the left and middle images are original , while the right is the morphed image
c) Image retouching: beginning from the left, the first image is the original image followed by its
retouched image
d) Image resampling: the left image is the original image followed by its resampled image
e) Copy-move forgery: beginning from the left, the first image is the original image followed by its
tampered image
Fig. 1 Digital image forgery types
3) Building a CNN that facilitates and accelerates the testing process by constructing a high
performance classification system.
4) Speeding up the forgery detection process.
The structure of this paper is organized as follows. The next section shows the related work.
Section 3 provides a brief review of the CNN. In Section 4, a detailed discussion of the
proposed algorithm is presented, while Section 5 portrays the experimental results obtained
using a diversity of datasets with different types of attacks. Finally, Section 6 gives the
concluding remarks of the paper.
2 Related work
Digital forensics is a branch of science that depends on blind investigation methods. There are
different digital forensics applications such as image, network, database, and audio forensics.
Digital audio forensics is used for a variety of applications ranging from authenticating audio
files to linking audio recordings to the acquisition device, linking them to the acoustic
environment, in which the audio recording was made, and identifying traces of coding or
transcoding [52], [20]. Digital image forensic techniques work according to the fact that image
forgeries need to be detected without any previous knowledge of the original content.
Recently, two main categories of CMFD algorithms have emerged: traditional algorithms
and algorithms that depend on deep learning. Traditional algorithms are the algorithms that
directly depend on statistical, geometric, or physical features of the image in addition to the
image consistency [11]. On the other hand, algorithms that adopt deep learning depend on
building deep neural networks, which work as classification systems that automatically learn
and extract complex statistical dependencies from images [54].
Traditional algorithms for CMFD are classified into block-based algorithms and non-block-
based algorithms. In the block-based algorithms, the images are divided into overlapping
rectangular or circular blocks that vary from one algorithm to another. After that, features are
extracted from each block using different feature extraction techniques. Various feature
extraction techniques involving frequency transformations, image texture and intensity, as
well as invariant moments are implemented in block-based algorithms [47]. Finally, a
matching process is performed to determine the similar blocks according to their features [36].
In the literature, several transformation techniques including Discrete Cosine Transform
(DCT), Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Discrete
Wavelet Transform (DWT), Dyadic Wavelet Transform (DyWT), and combinations of them,
have been used for CMFD [47]. Fridrich et al. [12] presented the first algorithm, which uses
DCT for CMFD. In this algorithm, the image is divided into overlapping blocks, and the DCT
is computed for each block. The DCT coefficients are then extracted to represent the image
features. These coefficients are used to build a lexicographic map to detect the similar blocks.
Ahmet Boz et al. [4] utilized Local Binary Patterns (LBPs) in addition to DCT for CMFD. This
technique is based on dividing the images into overlapping blocks, and then each block is
converted to the LBP domain. Afterwards, the DCT is applied for each LBP block. The
obtained feature matrix is lexicographically sorted to detect similar blocks, which are sequen-
tially sorted. Furthermore, the algorithm in [18] used both DCT and SVD for detecting and
locating copy-move forgeries. After dividing the image into blocks, the DCT is applied for
each block to extract its features. The SVD is utilized for enhancing the capability to resist
noise and allow dimensionality reduction after applying the DCT. The algorithms in [25, 26]
have been used to enhance the discrimination ability in the DCT domain.
In addition, texture and intensity techniques have been used to extract features and detect
the similarities in the tampered images. For CMFD, there are some metrics to measure and
characterize the image texture as well as image structure intensity such as average intensity,
pattern location, and color information [47]. The algorithm of [55] applied DWT to decompose
the sample images into multi-scale sub-images (LL, LH, HL, and HH). The algorithm
calculates the texture features using the approximate LL image to locate the forgeries. Sharma
et al. [2] first converted color or RGB images to monochrome images. The monochrome
images are then divided into overlapping blocks. The features are extracted from each block
using Center Symmetric Local Binary Patterns (CSLBP), which produce binary patterns. To
detect the similar blocks, two thresholds are adjusted: Euclidean distance and shift frequency
[42].
Image invariant moments constitute a set of features that are invariant to rotation, transla-
tion, and scaling, in addition to being location dependent. Image moments are useful to analyze
image objects after block segmentation, shape analysis and part recognition [47]. There are
different types of image moments such as blur moments, Hu moments, Krawtchouk moments,
exponential Fourier moments, histogram moments, and Zernike moments [33]. The algorithm
in [32] resizes the original image into 25% of its dimensions to reduce the processing
complexity by using a Gaussian pyramid. After image resizing, the algorithm divides the
image into circular blocks and then extracts seven Hu moments from each block. These
moments act as features, which are used in searching for matched blocks. The algorithm that
handles the forgeries depends on rotation, blurring, noise addition and JPEG compression.
Muhammad et al. [35] used Zernike moments for recognizing image shapes to detect copy-
move forgeries. Firstly, un-decimated wavelet transform is applied to get the approximate
image. After that, the approximate image is divided into overlapping blocks. The Zernike
moments are then extracted from each block. Ultimately, the similarity between the blocks is
computed using Euclidean distance. A fast algorithm has been presented to accelerate the
moment computations. Exact Zernike moments are expressed as combinations of exact radial
moments, where exact values of radial moments are computed by mathematical integration of
the monomial polynomials over digital image pixels [14]. A CMFD method that exploits both
the image color space information and the invariant moment features to represent the objects of
the images was reported in [24]. The tested RGB image is first converted to a gray-scale image
and a lab-color image. Both images are divided into overlapping blocks. Seven moments are
extracted from the gray-scale image and three from the lab-color image. The tampered blocks
are detected according to the comparison between the block features extracted from both
images.
On the other hand, non-block-based CMFD algorithms are applied by extracting features
from the whole image [9]. Invariant keypoint techniques extract the distinctive local features
such as blobs, edges, and corners from the image. The most popular keypoint descriptors,
which have been used for CMFD and have provided good accuracy, are the Scale Invariant
Feature Transform (SIFT) and the Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF) [40]. The algorithm
stated in [17] is the first algorithm that exploited SIFT in CMFD using the best-bin-first nearest
neighbour identification. This early algorithm suffers from weaknesses in detecting small-size
tampered regions. Amerini et al. [2] developed a CMFD system based on SIFT technique,
which is capable of detecting forgeries disguised by applying geometric transformations, such
as scaling, rotation and transition. The algorithm has four main steps: SIFT feature extraction,
keypoint vector construction, keypoint clustering, and estimation of geometric transformation.
The algorithm uses an Euclidean distance threshold to detect the candidate match. A CMFD
scheme was offered in [7] to solve the problem of SIFT keypoint removal and injection. For
image forgery detection, three new detectors have been used for which SIFT keypoints are
removed. These detectors are Support Vector Machine (SVM) detector, CHI-square distance
detector, and keypoints-to-corner ratio detector. The consistency in keypoint map as in image
texture is the reference for that algorithm. In addition, it detects the injected fake keypoints.
The results show that the employed detectors are reliable against both fake keypoint injection
and keypoint removal, which are performed to hide copy-move forgery. Other approaches
detect image object boundaries, perform image segmentation according to the spatial relation-
ship of neighboring pixels, and then extract features [10, 15, 16, 50, 51]. These features are
used to search for copy-move forgery by searching for duplication of features, especially in
medical images [51].
Recently, deep learning techniques have been used in different fields. One of such
fields is detecting image forgeries. The CNN is one of the most commonly-used deep
learning techniques for image processing applications. The CNN constructs a hierarchical
feature representation that works as a trainable multi-stage architecture. Each stage
generates certain feature maps. This trainable process contains several operations such
as non-linear activation, linear convolution, and spatial pooling [31]. An algorithm based
on CNN has been presented in [39] to automatically build hierarchical representations of
color images. This algorithm has been developed for copy-move forgery detection in
addition to image splicing. The first layer is initialized by 30 high-pass filters, used in a
Spatial Rich Model (SRM) [46] instead of the random trials of filters utilized by default in
CNNs. The pre-trained CNN results are used as patch feature samples to compare with
features from the tested images. A feature fusion technique is used for allocating the final
discriminative features by merging related information extracted from testing and training
images without losing data.
Another method that is based on CNN to detect copy-move forgeries was elucidated in
[37]. This method uses a pre-trained model generated from an extensive database and then
performs fine-tuning of the structure of the network using few training samples of copy-
move forgery. This method achieved good performance with computer generated tampered
images. However, when it is applied in a real scenario with copy-move forgery, the
performance is very poor. Furthermore, the authors of [49] used a CNN with a
deconvolutional network. The algorithm commences by dividing the tested image into
blocks. Then, a CNN is used to extract the features from the image blocks. Afterwards,
self-correlations between blocks are computed. Next, the matched points between blocks
are localized, and finally, the forgery mask is reconstructed by the deconvolutional
network. Although some deep learning algorithms have dealt with different types of digital
image manipulations, such as image splicing [21], the CMFD based on CNNs is still a hot
research topic that needs much effort. In the next section, a brief overview of the CNN is
given. The CMFD problem can be treated as an object detection problem to search for
objects with some extent of similarity. Similar to the algorithms presented in [7, 15, 16] for
object detection from images, an effective object detection algorithm was proposed for the
small and occluded objects depending on Multi-layer Convolution Feature Fusion (MCFF)
and Online Hard Example Mining (OHEM) [6].
3 Convolutional neural network
The Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is one of the most efficient and effective techniques that
have been used in a diversity of image processing applications over the last decade. On the
other hand, the CNN is an explicit type of neural networks that exploits perceptrons, a machine
learning algorithm devised for supervised learning, to process and analyze data. The CNN is
based on connecting various perceptrons in a multi-layer fashion to achieve the minimum
overall processing [13]. The CNN consists of an input layer followed by several Convolutional
(CNV) layers. Each CNV layer is followed by a pooling layer to generate the outputs that are
fed to the Fully-Connected (FC) layer to produce the output. The schematic diagram of the
CNN structure is displayed in Fig. 2.
Feature Maps Feature Maps Output

Pooled Feature
Maps Pooled Feature Class (1)
Maps
Class
Pooling (1)
Input Pooling (n)
CNV Layer (1) CNV Layer (n)
Class
CNV and Pooling Layers

Final
FC Layer Classification
Fig. 2 The CNN structure
The input of a CNN is a 2D image, typically unprocessed (raw) input data. This raw data is
supplied to the CNV layer. Convolution, in general, is an operation of filtering of this input
data. In image classification, 2D filters are used to process the input image at different layers to
generate the features. These filters are pre-defined and their coefficients are computed during
training. Basically, training is performed with a back-propagation algorithm depending on
gradient descent concept [44]. Generally, the CNN image classification system comprises
multiple CNV layers. The inputs of these CNV layers are called input feature maps, and their
outputs are called output feature maps, as shown in Fig. 2.
The pooling layer incorporates both the activation and sub-sampling operations [53]. The
activation operation is typically a nonlinear operation that is applied to each element of the
convolution output such as max(0, x), where x is the input data. The activation operation
changes all the negative activations to zero to increase the nonlinear properties. The activation
operation does not change the size of the input. The sub-sampling operation is applied after the
activation to reduce the size of its input to typically half at each dimension without affecting
the input depth. The window size used during sub-sampling is 2 × 2 or 3 × 3 as shown in
Fig. 3. Applying pooling operation leads to reducing the amount of spatial information, which
leads to a good computational performance and lessens the parameters that lead to less chances
of overfitting.
The FC layer reduces the size of input data to the size of classes that the CNN is trained for
by combining the outputs of the CNV layer with different weights. The Classification Layer
(CL) is the final layer of the CNN that classifies the output of the FC layer. Typically, soft-max
algorithm is used in this layer to assign each object from the FC layer to a certain class in a
224 × 224 × No. of samples

Single depth sample
112 × 112 × N ‫خ‬. of samples 0 2 0 0
Max pooling with
Pooling
1 1 1 1 2×2 filters 2 1
1 1 1 1 1 2
0 0 2 0
Fig. 3 Pooling example

Global Average Pooling

Convolutional Layer 1
Convolutional Layer 6
(As a distance metric for

self-similarity between
Data Pre-processing
Max Pooling 1
Max Pooling 6
Original
image patches)
Layer (GAP)
Dense Layer
Image
Tampered
Fig. 4 The structure of the proposed algorithm
multi-class classification operation. Soft-max algorithm calculates the probability for each
possible class. In the next section, the proposed system for CMFD is given in detail.
4 Proposed deep CMFD algorithm
The goal of this paper is to develop an efficient deep CMFD algorithm that can achieve high
performance with considerably low computational cost. The proposed algorithm is based on
the architecture of the CNN displayed in Fig. 4. It is a non-block-based algorithm, which
works on the whole image. It has three phases: the pre-processing phase, the feature extraction
phase, and the classification phase. In the data pre-processing phase, the input images are
resized to a specified size without cropping any parts. The feature extraction stage depends on
the number of samples, the width and the height of the input image, as well as the number of
filters used in each CNV layer.
In the proposed algorithm, the feature extraction is performed through a series of six CNV
layers, each followed by a max-pooling layer. A Global Average Pooling (GAP) layer is also
used for data reduction. Finally, a dense layer with a size of two classes (original or tampered)
is used for the classification decision (classification phase). The CNV layers act as feature
extractors, where each CNV layer produces its feature maps through its specific filters.
Beginning with the feature maps produced from the first CNV layer, the following max
pooling layer produces resized pooled feature maps, which act as inputs to the next CNV
Table 1 CNV and pooling layers summary
Layer Type Output Shape
CNV 1 (No. of samples, 224, 224, 16)

Pooling 1 (No. of samples, 112, 112, 16)
CNV 2 (No. of samples, 110, 110, 32)
CNV 3 (No. of samples, 53, 53, 64)
Global Average Layer (No. of samples, 512)
Dense (No. of samples, 2)
Using
GAP
Fig. 5 The operation of the GAP layer
layer. The final pooled feature maps of the last max pooling layer are formulated as vectors and
inserted into the GAP layer.
Table 1 summarizes the CNV and pooling layers and their output specifications. The size of
the input images is 224 × 224. The numbers of filters implemented are 16, 32, 64, 128, 256,
and 512 for the CNV layers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively.
In the proposed algorithm, the GAP and dense layers are used as a fully-connected
layer. The average of the feature maps produced from the last max-pooling layer is
directly inserted into a soft-max function. The main advantage of the GAP layer is its
compatibility with the convolution structure. It is used as a structural regularizer by
performing correspondences between feature maps and the required categories. Fur-
thermore, it reduces overfitting probability by minimizing the total number of param-
eters utilized in the layer structure as shown in Fig. 5.
Finally, a dense layer is used in the classification process as a distance metric for self-
similarity between image patches. The dense layer has a soft-max activation function and a
class for each possible category (original or tampered). Results of the proposed algorithm are
illustrated in the next section.
Table 2 The details of the MICC-F220, MICC-F2000, MICC-F600, and SATs-130 datasets
Dataset Composition Size of Images Size of Tampered Region
MICC-F220 It consists of 220 images Between 722 × 480 and The region represents 1.2%
divided into 110 tampered 800 × 600 pixels of the whole image.
images and 110 original images.
MICC-F2000 It consists of 2000 images divided 2048 × 1536 pixels The tampered region represents
into 700 tampered images and 1.12% of the whole image.
1300 original images.
MICC-F600 It consists of 600 images divided Between 800 × 532 and The tampered region size varies
into 152 tampered images and 3888 × 2592 pixels from one image to another.
448 original images.
SATs-130 It consists of 96 images divided Between 1024 × 683 and The tampered region size varies
into 48 tampered images and 3264 × 2448 pixels from one image to another.
48 original images.
Fig. 6 Examples of copy-move forgeries from the combinational dataset: beginning from the left, the first image
is the original image followed by its tampered version
5 Experimental results
This section gives an inclusive evaluation of the results obtained when applying the proposed
algorithm. In addition, the obtained results are compared with the findings of the previous
methods reported in the literature. The experiments have been implemented on a machine with
Intel core i7, 4 GB GPU driver, 64 bits processor; 8 GB RAM, operating by Windows 10. The
proposed algorithm is implemented by Python 3.5 and using Keras with TensorFlow backend
toolkits.
5.1 Datasets
The most famous and usable datasets in the evaluation of copy-move forgery detection
algorithms are MICC-F220 [2], MICC-F2000 [2], MICC-F600 [1], and recently SATs-130
[5]. These dataset details are listed in Table 2.
For MICC-F600 dataset, the tampered images are divided into four groups with different
tampering operations [1], as follows:
a) 38 images tampered by copying one patched region, applying transition, and then the
move.
b) 38 images tampered by copying two or three patched regions, applying transition, and
then the move.
c) 38 images tampered by copying one patched region, rotating by 30 degrees, and then the
move.
Table 3 The results of the proposed algorithm on the MICC-F220 dataset
Metrics Accuracy % Log Loss % TPR % FPR % FNR % TNR % TT (sec)

No. of Epochs
15 Epochs 92.18 7.82 86.67 Zero 13.33 100 16.43

25 Epochs 96.15 3.85 92.86 Zero 7.14 100 17.95
35 Epochs 97.62 2.38 95.45 Zero 4.55 100 15.29
50 Epochs 100 Zero 100 Zero Zero 100 13.96
100 Epochs 100 Zero 100 Zero% Zero 100 17.76

No. of Epochs
15 Epochs 92.16 7.84 93.18 9.72 6.82 90.28 108.4

25 Epochs 95.1 4.99 96.88 7.89 3.13 92.11 116.6
35 Epochs 98 2 97.73 1.39 2.27 98.61 119.4
100 Epochs 99.51 0.49 99.24 Zero 0.76 100 90.1
d) 38 images tampered by copying one patched region, rotated by 30 degrees, scaled by

120%, and then the move.
The proposed algorithm has been tested on MICC-F220, MICC-F2000 and MICC-F600
datasets. Yet, the SATs-130 is a relatively small dataset (96 images). Training of the CNN
with such small dataset causes overfitting, which makes the algorithm unable to extract
features during the training operation. Overfitting also takes place, when the training sessions
are extended to the level that the CNV layers cannot correctly generate the feature maps.
Therefore, we merged the four datasets: (MICC-F220, MICC-F2000, MICC-F600, and SATs-
130) to create an extensive combinational dataset. The benefit of integrating various datasets
extends beyond simply increasing the dataset size to generalizing the evaluation process of the
proposed algorithm.
The combinational dataset has 2916 images: 1010 tampered and 1906 original taken from
MICC-F220, MICC-F2000, MICC-F600, and SATs-130 datasets. The sizes of the images vary
from (722 × 480) to (3888 × 2592) with variable sizes of tampered regions as shown in Table 2.
Some illustrative images are shown in Fig. 6.
5.2 Evaluation metrics
The detection accuracy is used to estimate the strength of the implemented CNN. Accuracy is
calculated as follows:
No: of correctly detected images ðT N þ T P Þ
Accuracy ¼ 100 ¼ 100 ð1Þ
Total No: of images ðT P þ F P þ T N þ F N Þ
where;

No. of Epochs
15 Epochs 92.1569 7.8431 90.91 5.56 9.09 94.44 32.41

25 Epochs 94.1176 5.8824 93.75 5.26 6.25 94.73 33.07
35 Epochs 96.0784 3.9216 96.77 5.00 3.23 95.00 32.30
Table 6 The results of the proposed algorithm on the combinational dataset

No. of Epochs
15 Epochs 93.57 6.43 94.20 7.04 5.80 92.96 112.82

25 Epochs 95.00 5.00 95.65 5.63 4.35 94.37 114.98
35 Epochs 97.86 2.14 100 4.11 Zero 95.89 117.73
50 Epochs 98.57 1.43 100 2.78 Zero 97.22 112.47
a) True Positive (TP) is the number of tampered images that are truly detected as tampered
images.
b) False Positive (FP) is the number of original images that are falsely detected as tampered
images.
c) False Negative (FN) is the number of tampered images that are falsely detected as original
images.
d) True Negative (TN) is the number of original images that are truly detected as original
images.
The Logarithmic loss (Log Loss), used with multiple class classification, denotes the false
classifications. For N samples belonging to M classes, the Log Loss is calculated as follows:
−1 N
LogLoss ¼ ∑ ∑M Z ab :logðpab Þ ð2Þ
N a¼1 b¼1
where Zab indicates if sample (a) belongs to class (b) or not, and pab indicates the probability of
that sample (a) belonging to class (b). If the Log Loss is close to zero, this indicates a higher
value of accuracy.
The target of the training phase is to optimize the loss function to the minimum value as
much as possible. Adam optimizer [22] was targeted to optimize the loss function. This
function is the cross-entropy. Using the alternative label convention t ¼ 1þy 2 with t ∈f0; 1g,
the cross-entropy loss is defined as:
V ð f ðxÞ; tÞ ¼ −t:lnð f ðxÞÞ−ð1−tÞ:lnð1− f ðxÞÞ ð3Þ
Fig. 7 Accuracy and Log Loss of the proposed algorithm for MICC-F220 dataset with 50 epochs
The cross-entropy loss is closely related to the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the
empirical distribution and the predicted distribution. This function is not naturally represented
as a product of the true label and the predicted value, but it is convex and can be minimized
using stochastic gradient descent methods. The cross-entropy loss is ubiquitous in modern
deep neural networks.
Furthermore, Testing Time (TT) represents an important factor that participates in evaluat-
ing the proposed algorithm and comparing it with other algorithms. The TT is the average time
taken to test the images for (k) rounds of the testing operation.
5.3 The results
This section presents a detailed manifestation of the obtained evaluation results for the
proposed deep CMFD algorithm. The proposed algorithm has been applied on the MICC-
F220, MICC-F2000, MICC-F600, and combinational datasets. Several experiments have been
carried out using different numbers of training sessions (epochs) to determine the number of
epochs at which the best performance is achieved.
Furthermore, the proposed deep CMFD has been evaluated using the k-fold cross validation
technique. In this technique, the learning process is repeated (k) times to achieve the diversity
between the tested images and accomplish a strong evaluation by testing the datasets,
completely. This technique proceeds by randomly dividing the dataset into (k) groups (folds)
of approximately equal size. The proposed system is trained by (k-1) groups, and the
remaining groups constitute the test set. The training and testing groups are shifted for (k)
rounds. This work adopts a 10-fold cross validation technique. Thus, 90% of the dataset
Fig. 10 Accuracy and Log Loss of the proposed algorithm for the combinational dataset with 75 epochs
images are randomly chosen for training and the remaining 10% for testing, for ten rounds. In
each round, 10% of the testing images are crossed over to the next 10%.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 give the results of the experiments conducted on MICC-F220, MICC-
F2000, and MICC-F600 datasets, respectively, for different numbers of epochs. These results
show that the accuracy and the TPR values increase as the number epochs increases to reach
100% at 50 epochs. In addition, the Log Loss and the FNR decrease to zero with 50 epochs.
For the MICC-F220 dataset, the FPR and TNR values are zero and 100%, respectively, for
all epochs. For the MICC-F2000 and MICC-F600 datasets, the FPR reaches zero with 50
epochs, whilst the TNR reaches 100% with 50 epochs as well. Furthermore, the TT shows
variations as the number of epochs changes, and it reaches its minima of (13.96, 78.6 and
23.97 s. for MICC-F220, MICC-F2000 and MICC-F600, respectively), with 50 epochs.
Additionally, Table 6 summarizes the results obtained by applying the proposed deep
CMFD algorithm on the combinational dataset. It can be observed from the results that
the values of the accuracy and TNR increase to reach 100% with 75 epochs. On the
contrary, Log Loss and FPR diminish to zero with 75 epochs. Moreover, the values of
TPR and FNR change until reaching 100% and zero, respectively, with 35 epochs.
Finally, the TT varies as the number of epochs changes and achieves its minimum of
110.1 s with 75 epochs.
5.4 Discussion
This section exhibits a comprehensive discussion of the results obtained using the proposed
deep CMFD algorithm. It can be observed from the results that the number of training sessions
has a huge impact on the overall system performance. For the MICC-F220 dataset, the system
has effectively identified the original images at all epochs (TNR = 100%). However, its ability
Fig. 11 TT versus number of 125

epochs for MICC-F220 dataset 100
TT (sec)
75
50
25
0
15 25 35 50 75 100
Number of epochs

epochs for MICC-F2000 dataset 100
TT (sec)
75
50
25
0
15 25 35 50 75 100
Number of epochs
to detect the tampered images increases as the number of epochs increases to achieve the
optimum detection of tampered images with 50 epochs (TPR = 100%).
Additionally, for the MICC-F2000 and MICC-F600 datasets, the ability of the system to
detect the original and the tampered images increases as the number of epochs increases to 50
giving TPR = 100% and TNR = 100%. Furthermore, using the combinational dataset, the
tampered images are entirely detected with 35 epochs (TPR = 100%), while the original images
are fully identified with 75 epochs (TNR = 100%). Noteworthy, increasing the number of
epochs may lead to either reaching a steady-state condition, where the Accuracy and Log Loss
reach a constant value (as for MICC-F220, MICC-F600 and the combinational datasets), or a
decrease of Accuracy and an increase of Log Loss due to the occurrence of overfitting (as for
the MICC-F2000 dataset). Accordingly, increasing the number of epochs may not improve the
results, but rather may yield worse results.
Figures 7, 8 and 9 illustrate the training and inference processes with 50 epochs (the top
score) for the MICC-F220, MICC-F2000 and MICC-F600 datasets, respectively. On the other
hand, for the combinational dataset, Fig. 10 demonstrates the training and inference procedures
with 75 epochs (the best results). The results elucidate that the test accuracy increases and
settles at 100% with 75 epochs for the combinational dataset and with 50 epochs for the other
datasets, whilst the test loss diminishes and settles at zero with 75 epochs for the combinational
dataset and with 50 epochs for the other datasets.
For the computational cost, the outcomes reveal that the optimum TT is attained with 50
epochs for MICC-F220, MICC-F2000, and MICC-F600 datasets, and with 75 epochs for the
combinational dataset, at which the best scores are achieved. This indicates that the proposed
algorithm is capable of providing a convenient high performance without computational
squandering.
In the CNN, there are several parameters that affect the results in both accuracy and testing
time. These parameters, for example, are the amount of training data (the size of the datasets),
the size of the input data, the number of model layers, and the number of epochs. In case of

epochs forMICC-F600 dataset 100
TT (sec)
75
50
25
0
15 25 35 50 75 100
Number of epochs
125
100
TT (sec)
75
50
25
0
15 25 35 50 75 100
Number of epochs
Fig. 14 TT versus number of epochs for the combinational dataset
fixed amount of training data, fixed size of input, and fixed number of convolution layers; the
only parameter that affects the testing time is the number of epochs.
There is a mutual effect between the number of epochs and the time in which the model
reaches the best feature maps. The time for the model to reach the best feature maps allows it to
build the best behavior. For a certain number of epochs, the best feature maps are extracted.
Beyond this number of epochs, overfitting may occur. On the other hand, when the number of
epochs is less than this value, the model is not able to extract feature maps, accurately. From
this discussion, it is clear that the number of epochs affects the testing time (TT) if other
parameters are kept fixed.
A short TT is achieved owing to the CNN structure. In the training phase, the CNN
automatically extracts the image features and establishes the feature maps. In the testing phase,
these feature maps are used to classify the sample images to original or tampered. This
procedure significantly speeds up the classification process. Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14 show
the variation of the TT as the number of epochs changes.
5.5 Comparison with traditional methods
In this section, a comparison between the proposed algorithm and several well-known
traditional algorithms is presented. The results registered in this work are compared with those
of the algorithms of Amerini et al. [1, 2], Mishra et al. [34], Kaur et al. [19], as well as Elaskily
et al. [10]. The algorithms in [1, 2, 10] have been implemented on the same machine that has
been used for simulating the proposed algorithm. However, the algorithm in [34] has been
realized on Intel core i5, 64 bits processor, operating with Windows 8.1 using MATLAB
R2013a. Kaur et al. [19], on the other hand, did not specify the utilized hardware and software.
Table 7 Comparison between the proposed algorithm and the previously reported algorithms on MICC-F220
dataset
The Proposed Amerini et al. Amerini et al. Mishra et al. Kaur et al. Elaskily et al.
Algorithm [2] [1] [34] [19] [10]
TPR % 100 100 100 73.64 97.27 100

FPR % Zero 8 6 3.64 7.27 1.80
FNR % Zero Zero Zero 26.36 2.73 Zero
TNR % 100 92 94 96.36 92.73 98.20
TT (mm:ss) 0:14 24:13 17:05 0:2.85 N/A 2:48
Table 8 Comparison between the proposed algorithm and the previously reported algorithms on MICC-F2000
dataset
The Proposed Algorithm Amerini et al. [2] Amerini et al. [1] Elaskily et al. [10]
TPR % 100 93.42 94.86 98.40

FPR % Zero 11.61 9.15 6.35
FNR % Zero 6.58 5.14 1.60
TNR % 100 88.39 90.85 93.65
TT (mm:ss) 01:19 312:18 180:15 46:58
It is worth mentioning that the deep learning algorithms generally take a relatively long
time in the training process, while the testing process takes a much less time. Additionally, the
training stage is only performed once for preparing a classification model. Once the model is
formulated, it is used to perform a fast classification process.
Tables 7, 8 and 9 summarize the results of comparison. The results reveal that the proposed
deep-learning-based CMFD algorithm offers a good performance in comparison with those of
the traditional CMFD algorithms. In addition, the testing process is computationally efficient,
which saves the computing resources.
6 Conclusions
This paper created a novel CMFD methodology based on deep neural learning. The
main contribution of this work is to develop a CNN classification system to classify the
candidate images to two classes: original and tampered. The CNN system extracts
image features and builds feature maps. The CNN uses the average of the produced
feature maps and automatically searches for the feature correspondences and dependen-
cies. After training the CNN, the system is ready to test and classify the images to
detect the copy-move forgeries. The proposed algorithm has been evaluated on various
datasets under diverse copy-move conditions including single or multiple cloning with
different cloning areas. The number of training sessions is an important parameter that
plays a pivotal role in the proposed algorithm. Several experiments have been conduct-
ed using different numbers of epochs. The results reveal that the best performance has
been achieved using 50 epochs for the MICC-F220, MICC-F2000, and MICC-F600
datasets with 100% accuracy and zero Log Loss. Furthermore, to ensure the general-
ization of the proposed algorithm, the former datasets have been combined with the
SATs-130 dataset to form a combinational dataset. The proposed algorithm was eval-
uated on the combinational dataset as well. The findings disclose that the optimum
Table 9 Comparison between the proposed algorithm and previously reported algorithms on MICC-F600 dataset
The Proposed Algorithm Amerini et al. [2] Amerini et al. [1] Elaskily et al. [10]
TPR % 100 69.20 81.60 94.50

FPR % Zero 12.50 7.27 11.35
FNR % Zero 30.80 18.40 5.5
TNR % 100 87.50 92.73 88.65
TT (mm:ss) 0:24 115:00 76:21 17:37
accuracy of (100%) and the lowermost Log Loss (zero) are achieved at 75 epochs.
Furthermore, the experimental results proved that the proposed algorithm offers a very
short TT compared with the other algorithms. This is due to the nature of the CNN that
automatically excerpts image features and builds feature maps. These feature maps are
used to classify the sample images to a specific class: original or tampered. This
training manner accelerates the classification procedure, significantly. The overall
results indicate that the deep-learning-based proposed algorithm extensively outper-
forms the reported algorithms according in performance and TT. In the future work,
CNN modification may be performed to further speed up the proposed algorithm. In
addition, more challenging datasets may be investigated to test the suggested algorithm.
Moreover, deep learning techniques may be applied to detect other types of digital
image forgeries.
References
1. Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, Del Bimbo A, Del Tongo L, Serra G (2013) Copy-Move Forgery Detection
and Localization by Means of Robust Clustering with J-Linkage. Signal Processing: Image Communication
28(6):659–669
2. Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, Del Bimbo A, Serra G (2011) A SIFT-based forensic method for copy–
move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Trans Inf For Secur 6(3)
3. Birajdar GK, Mankar VH (2013) Digital image forgery detection using passive techniques: a survey. Digit
Investig 10:226–245
4. Boz A, Bilge HŞ (2016) Copy-move image forgery detection based on LBP and DCT. 24th Signal
Processing and Communication Application Conference (SIU), 16–19
5. Christlein V, Riess C, Jordan J, Riess C, Angelopoulou E (2012) An evaluation of popular copy-move
forgery detection approaches. IEEE Trans Inf For Secur 7(6):1841–1854
6. Chu J, Guo Z, Leng L (2018) Object detection based on multi-layer convolution feature fusion and online
hard example mining. IEEE Access 6:19959–19967. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2815149
7. Costanzo A, Amerini I, Caldelli R, Barni M (2014) Forensic analysis of SIFT Keypoint removal and
injection. IEEE Trans Inf For Secur 9(9):1450–1464
8. Derroll D, Divya B (2015) Image authentication techniques and advances survey, COMPUSOFT. Int J Adv
Comput Technol Volume-IV, No. IV
9. Elaskily MA, Aslan HK, Abd El-Samie FE, Elshakankiry OA, Faragallah OS, Dessouky MM (2017)
Comparative study of copy-move forgery detection techniques. Intl Conf on Advanced Control Circuits
Systems (ACCS) Systems & Intl Conf on New Paradigms in Electronics & Information Technology (PEIT),
Alexandria, Egypt
10. Elaskily MA, Elnemr HA, Dessouky MM, Faragallah OS (2018) Two Stages Object Recognition Based
Copy-Move Forgery Detection Algorithm. Multimedia Tools and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11042-018-6891-7
11. Farid H (2009) Image forgery detection a survey. IEEE Signal Process Mag 26(2):16–25
12. Fridrich J, Soukal D, Lukáš J (2003) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. Proceedings of
DFRWS 2003, Cleveland, USA
13. Gu J, Wang Z, Kuen J, Ma L, Shahroudy A, Shuai B, Liu T, Wang X, Wang G, Cai J, Chen T (2018) Recent
advances in convolutional neural networks. Pattern Recogn 77:354–377
14. Hosny KM (2008) Fast computation of accurate Zernike moments. Real-Time Image Process 3:97–107.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11554-007-0058-5
15. Hosny KM, Hamza HM, Lashin NA (2018) Copy-move forgery detection of duplicated objects using
accurate PCET moments and morphological operators. Imaging Sci J 66(6):330–345. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13682199.2018.1461345
16. Hosny KM, Hamza HM, Lashin NA Copy-for-duplication forgery detection in colour images using
QPCETMs and sub-image approach. IET Image Process. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-ipr.2018.5356
17. Huang H, Guo W, Zhang Y (2008) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images using sift algorithm.
Pacific-Asia workshop on computational intelligence and industrial application PACIIA’08, Volume 2, pp
272–276, Washington
18. Kang X, Lin G, Chen Y, Zhang E, Duan G (2012) Detecting tampered regions in digital images using
discrete cosine transform and singular value decomposition. Int J Digit Content Technol Appl (JDCTA) 6
19. Kaur H, Saxena J, Singh S (2015) Simulative comparison of copy- move forgery detection methods for
digital images. Int J Electr Electr Comput Syst IJEECS, ISSN 2348-117X, Volume 4
20. Khan MK, Zakariah M, Malik H, Choo K-KR (2018) A novel audio forensic data-set for digital multimedia
forensics. Australian Journal of Forensic Science 50(5):525–542. https://doi.org/10.1080
/00450618.2017.1296186
21. Kim D-H, Lee H-Y (2017) Image manipulation detection using convolutional neural network. Int J Appl
Eng Res 12(21):11640–11646
22. Kingma DP, Ba JL, (2015) ADAM: a method for stochastic optimization. International conference on
learning representations, San Diego, CA, may 7, 2015 - may 9
23. Kirchner M, Böhme R (2008) Hiding traces of resampling in digital images. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur
3(4)
24. Kushol R, Salekin MS, Kabir MH, Khan AA (2016) Copy-move forgery detection using color space and
moment invariants-based features. International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and
Applications (DICTA), Australia
25. Leng L, Zhang J, Khan MK, Chen X, Alghathbar K (2010) Dynamic weighted discrimination power
analysis: a novel approach for face and palmprint recognition in DCT domain. Int J Phys Sci 5(17):2543–
2554
26. Leng L, Zhang J, Xu J, Khan MK, Alghathbar K (2010) Dynamic weighted discrimination power analysis
in DCT domain for face and Palmprint recognition. International conference on information and commu-
nication technology convergence (ICTC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ictc.2010.5674791
27. Liao X, Li K, Yin J (2016) Separable data hiding in encrypted image based on compressive sensing and
discrete fourier transform. Multimedia Tools and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3971-4
28. Liao X, Qin Z, Ding L (2017) Data embedding in digital images using critical functions. Signal Processing:
Image Communication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.image.2017.07.006
29. Liao X, Yu Y, Li B, Li Z, Qin Z (2019) A new payload partition strategy in color image steganography.
IEEE Trans Circ Syst Video Technol 1(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2019.2896270
30. Lin X, Li J-H, Wang S-L, Liew A-W-C, Cheng F, Huang X-S (2018) Recent advances in passive digital
image security forensics: a brief review. Engineering 4(1):29–39
31. Liu Y, Yin B, Yu J, Wang Z (2016) Image classification based on convolutional neural networks with cross-
level strategy. Multimed Tool Appl 76(8):11065–11079
32. Liua G, Wanga J, Lianb S, Wanga Z (2010) A passive image authentication scheme for detecting region-
duplication forgery with rotation. J Netw Comput Appl 34(5):1557–1565
33. Mahmoud K, Al-Rukab AA (2016) Moment based copy move forgery detection methods. Int J Comput Sci
Inf Secur (IJCSIS) 14(7)
34. Mishra P, Mishra N, Sharma S, Patel R (2013) Region duplication forgery detection technique based on
SURF and HAC. Sci World J Hindawi Publishing Corporation
35. Muhammad G, Hussain M (2013) Passive detection of copy-move image forgery using Undecimated
wavelets and Zernike moments. Inf J 16(5):2957–2964
36. Nanda W, Diane N, Xingming S, Moise FK (2014) Survey of partition-based techniques for copy-move
forgery detection. The scientific world journal 2014:Article ID 975456
37. Ouyang J, Liu Y, Liao M (2017) Copy-move forgery detection based on DeepLearning. 10th international
congress on image and signal processing, BioMedical engineering and informatics (CISP-BMEI). doi:
https://doi.org/10.1109/cisp-bmei.2017.8301940
38. Prajapati BM, Desai NP (2015) Forensic analysis of digital image tampering. Int J Technol Res Eng 2(10)
39. Rao Y, Ni J (2016) A deep learning approach to detection of splicing and copy-move forgeries in images.
IEEE international workshop on information forensics and security (WIFS)
40. Sadeghi S, Dadkhah S, Jalab H, Mazzola G, Uliyan D (2017) State of the art in passive digital image forgery
detection: copy-move image forgery. Pattern Anal Applic 21(2):291–306
41. Shah H, Shinde P, Kukreja J (2013) Retouching detection and steganalysis. Int J Eng Innov Res 2(6)
42. Sharma S, Ghanekar U (2015) A rotationally invariant texture descriptor to detect copy-move forgery in
medical images. IEEE Int Conf Comput Intell Commun Technol Ghaziabad pp 795–798
43. Thajeel SA, Sulong G (2014) A survey of copy-move forgery detection techniques. J Theor Appl Inf
Technol 70(1)
44. Tran DT, Iosifidis A, Gabbouj M (2018) Improving efficiency in convolutional neural networks with
multilinear filters. Neural Networks 105:328–339
45. Vartak R, Deshmukh S (2014) Survey of digital image authentication techniques. Int J Res Advent Technol
2(7)
46. Wang P, Wei Z, Xiao L (2015) Pure spatial rich model features for digital image steganalysis. Multimed
Tool Appl 75(5):2879–2912
47. Warif NBA, Wahab AWA, Idris MYI, Ramli R, Salleh R, Shamshirband S, Choo K-KR (2016) Copy-move
forgery detection: survey, challenges and future directions. J Netw Comput Appl 75:259–278
48. Weiqi L, Zhenhua Q, Feng P, Jiwu H (2007) A survey of passive technology for digital image forensics.
Front Comput Sci China 1(2):166–179
49. Wu Y, Abd-Almageed W, Natarajan P (2018) Image copy-move forgery detection via an end-to-end deep
neural network. IEEE winter conference on applications of computer vision (WACV), doi:https://doi.
org/10.1109/wacv.2018.00211
50. Yu H, He F, Pan Y (2018) Novel region-based active contour model via local patch similarity measure for
image segmentation. Multimedia Tools and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-5697-y
51. Yu H, He F, Pan Y (2018) A novel segmentation model for medical images with intensity in homogeneity
based on adaptive perturbation. Multimedia Tools and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-
6735-5
52. Zakariah M, Khan MK, Malik H (2016) Digital multimedia audio forensics: past, present and future.
Multimedia Tools and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-4277-2
53. Zeiler MD, Fergus R (2014) Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. European Conference
on Computer Vision (ECCV), pp 818–833
54. Zhan Y, Chen Y, Zhang Q, Kang X (2017) Image forensics based on transfer learning and convolutional
neural network. Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on information hiding and multimedia security,
Philadelphia, USA, 20–22
55. Zimba M, Xingming S (2011) Fast and robust image cloning detection using block characteristics of DWT
coefficients. Int J Digit Content Technol Appl 5
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Mohamed A. Elaskily received the B.Sc. (Hons.), M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science and
Engineering from Faculty of Electronic Engineering (FEE), Menoufia University, Menouf, Egypt, in 2008,
2013, and 2019, respectively. He is currently assistant professor with the Department of Informatics, Electronics
Research Institute (ERI), Cairo-Egypt. Mohamed got the CCNA and CCNP certifications from CISCO. He was
worked as Demonstrator at 2008. In September 2009, he was worked in the Egyptian Universities Network.
Since 2014, he has been a Ph.D. researcher in the Department of Informatics, ERI. The major fields of his
research interests are Computer Networks, Information Security, Ad-hoc security, Image Processing, and Digital
Image Forensics. Email: Mohamed_elaskily@eri.sci.eg.
Heba A. Elnemr is an Associate Professor at Electronics Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt. She received her B.Sc.
degree, M.Sc. degree and Ph.D. degree in Electronics and Communications Engineering from the Faculty of
Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt. She has supervised several masters and Ph.D. students in the field of image
processing. Her research interests include pattern recognition, signal processing, biometrics, computer vision and
image processing.
Ahmed Sedik received B.sc and M.Sc. of engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta, University, Egypt in 2012
and 2018 respectively. He is a teaching assistant at Faculty of Department of Robotics and Intelligent Machines,
Artificial Inteligence, Kafr Elsheikh University. He is studying Ph.D. at the Faculty of Engineering, Minia
University, Egypt.
Mohamed M. Dessouky received the B.Sc., (Hons.), M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees from Faculty of Electronic
Engineering (FEE), Menuofia University, Egypt, in 2006, 2011, and 2016, respectively. Since 2016, he has been
a teaching staff member in the department of Computer Science and Engineering at FEE. He is a CISCO
Academy Curriculum Lead for more than 10 years. He is a CISCO Academy Curriculum Lead for more than
10 years. His research interest include artificial intelligence, image processing and computer network security.
Ghada M. El Banby received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Automatic Control Engineering from Menoufia
University, Egypt in 2006, and 2012, respectively. She works as an associate professor at the Department of
Industrial Electronics and Control Engineering, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University. Her
current research interests include computer vision, data fusion, systems, image processing, signal processing,
medical imaging, modeling, and control.
Osama Elshakankiry was born in 1975. He holds a B.Sc. and an M.Sc. degree in Computer Science and
Engineering from the Menoufia University, Egypt. He received the Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from the
University of Manchester in 2010. In 2011, he joined the Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
Menoufia University, as a lecturer. Since September 2015, he has been with the Department of Information
Technology, Taif University, KSA, as an Assistant Professor. His current research interests include image
processing, IoT Security, Mobile Security, and Internet Security.
Ashraf A.M. Khalaf (PhD) received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering from Minia
University, Egypt, in 1989 and 1994 respectively. He received his Ph.D in electrical engineering from Graduate
School of Natural Science and Technology, Kanazawa University, Japan, in March 2000. He is currently
associate professor at the Electronics and Communications Engineering, Department, Faculty of Engineering
Minia University, Egypt. His current research areas of interest include adaptive systems, filtering, signal and
image processing, neural networks, deep learning, biomedical signal processing, and optical communications.
Heba K. Aslan is a Professor at Electronics Research Institute (ERI), Cairo, Egypt. She received her B.Sc.
degree, M.Sc. degree and Ph.D. degree in Electronics and Communications Engineering from the Faculty of
Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt in 1990, 1994 and 1998, respectively. Prof. Aslan has supervised several
masters and Ph.D. students in the field of computer network security. Her research interests include key
distribution protocols, authentication protocols, logical analysis of protocols and intrusion detection systems.
Osama S. Faragallah received the B.Sc. (Hons.), M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science and
Engineering from Menoufia University, Menouf, Egypt, in 1997, 2002, and 2007, respectively. He is currently
Professor with the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Electronic Engineering,
Menoufia University, where he was a Demonstrator from 1997 to 2002 and has been Assistant Lecturer from
2002 to 2007 and since 2007 he has been a Teaching Staff Member with the Department of Computer Science
and Engineering, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University. He was an Associate Professor from
2013 to 2018. Since 2015, He joined with the Department of Information Technology, College of Computers and
Information Technology, Taif University, Al-Hawiya 21,974, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He is a coauthor of
about 150 papers in international journals and conference proceedings, and two textbooks. His current research
interests include network security, cryptography, internet security, multimedia security, image encryption,
watermarking, steganography, data hiding, medical image processing, remote sensing, and chaos theory. Email:
osam_sal@yahoo.com, o.salah@tu.edu.sa, Mobile: 00966540923647, 00966548395560.
Fathi E. Abd El-Samie received the B.Sc., (Hons.), M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees from Menuofia University,
Menouf, Egypt, in 1998, 2001, and 2005, respectively. Since 2005, he has been a Teaching Staff Member with
the Department of Electronics and Electrical Communications, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia
University. He was a researcher at KACST-TIC in Radio Frequency and Photonics for the e-
Society(RFTONICs). His current research interests include image enhancement, image restoration, image
interpolation, super-resolution reconstruction of images, data hiding, multimedia communications, medicalimage
processing,optical signal processing, and digital communications. He was a recipient of the Most Cited Paper
Award from the Digital Signal Processing journal in 2008.
Affiliations
Mohamed A. Elaskily 1,2 & Heba A. Elnemr 3 & Ahmed Sedik 4 & Mohamed M.
Dessouky 2,10 & Ghada M. El Banby 5 & Osama A. Elshakankiry 2,6 & Ashraf A. M. Khalaf 7 &
Heba K. Aslan 1 & Osama S. Faragallah 2,6 & Fathi E. Abd El-Samie 8,9
Heba A. Elnemr
heba_elnemr@yahoo.com
Ahmed Sedik
ahmedsedik93@gmail.com
Mohamed M. Dessouky
mohamed.moawad@el-eng.menofia.edu.eg
Ghada M. El Banby
ghada.elbanby@el-eng.menofia.edu.eg
Osama A. Elshakankiry
osama_alshakankiry@yahoo.com
Ashraf A. M. Khalaf
ashkhalaf@yahoo.com
Heba K. Aslan
hebaaslan@yahoo.com
Osama S. Faragallah
osam_sal@yahoo.com
Fathi E. Abd El-Samie
fathi_sayed@yahoo.com
1
Informatics Department, Electronics Research Institute (ERI), Cairo, Egypt
2
Computer Science and Engineering Department, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia University,
Menouf 32952, Egypt
3
Computers and Systems Department, Electronics Research Institute (ERI), Cairo, Egypt
4
Department of the Robotics and Inteligent Machines, Faculty of Artificial Inteligence, Kafrelsheikh
University, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt
5
Department of Industrial Electronics and Control Engineering, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia
University, Menouf 32952, Egypt
6
Department of Information Technology, College of Computers and Information Technology, Taif University,
Taif University, Al-Hawiyah 21974, Saudi Arabia
7
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Minia University, Minia 61111, Egypt
8
Department Electronics and Electrical Communications, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, Menoufia
University, Menouf 32952, Egypt
9
Department of Information Technology, College of Computer and Information sciences, Princess Nourah
Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
10
Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, College of Computer Science and
Engineering, University of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
View publication stats

A Novel Deep Learning Framework For Copy-Move Forgery Detection in Images

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Novel Deep Learning Framework For Copy-Move Forgery Detection in Images

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A novel deep learning framework for copy-move forgery detection in images

Article in Multimedia Tools and Applications · March 2020

Mohamed A. Elaskily Heba Elnemr

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmed Sedik Mohamed M. Dessouky

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

ECG signal compression View project

Forgery Detection View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A novel deep learning framework for copy-move

Received: 6 February 2019 / Revised: 25 December 2019 / Accepted: 17 February 2020

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Keywords Copy-move forgery detection . Image authentication . Deep learning . Convolutional

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

3 Convolutional neural network

Feature Maps Feature Maps Output

CNV Layer (1) CNV Layer (n)

CNV and Pooling Layers

224 × 224 × No. of samples

Fig. 3 Pooling example

Global Average Pooling

(As a distance metric for

Fig. 4 The structure of the proposed algorithm

4 Proposed deep CMFD algorithm

Table 1 CNV and pooling layers summary

Layer Type Output Shape

CNV 1 (No. of samples, 224, 224, 16)

Fig. 5 The operation of the GAP layer

Dataset Composition Size of Images Size of Tampered Region

Table 3 The results of the proposed algorithm on the MICC-F220 dataset

Metrics Accuracy % Log Loss % TPR % FPR % FNR % TNR % TT (sec)

15 Epochs 92.18 7.82 86.67 Zero 13.33 100 16.43

Table 4 The results of the proposed algorithm on the MICC-F2000 dataset

Metrics Accuracy % Log Loss % TPR % FPR % FNR % TNR % TT (sec)

15 Epochs 92.16 7.84 93.18 9.72 6.82 90.28 108.4

d) 38 images tampered by copying one patched region, rotated by 30 degrees, scaled by

5.2 Evaluation metrics

Table 5 The results of the proposed algorithm on the MICC-F600 dataset

Metrics Accuracy % Log Loss % TPR % FPR % FNR % TNR % TT (sec)

15 Epochs 92.1569 7.8431 90.91 5.56 9.09 94.44 32.41

Table 6 The results of the proposed algorithm on the combinational dataset

Metrics Accuracy % Log Loss % TPR % FPR % FNR % TNR % TT (sec)

15 Epochs 93.57 6.43 94.20 7.04 5.80 92.96 112.82

5.3 The results

Fig. 11 TT versus number of 125

Fig. 12 TT versus number of 125

Fig. 13 TT versus number of 125

5.5 Comparison with traditional methods

TPR % 100 100 100 73.64 97.27 100

TPR % 100 93.42 94.86 98.40

TPR % 100 69.20 81.60 94.50

View publication stats

You might also like