Detection performance comparison with raw images from the UW dataset for three benchmarking methods. The boldface and the underbar indicate the best and the second-best results, respectively.
| Method | Features or Designs | F1 score | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhao et al. [36] | Spatial | 75.81% | 78.15% | 73.61% |
| Histogram | 78.99% | 72.93% | 86.16% | |
| Frequency | 65.84% | 49.07% | 100% | |
| Spatial + Histogram | 86.77% | 82.78% | 91.17% | |
| Spatial + Frequency | 77.02% | 78.75% | 75.36% | |
| Histogram + Frequency | 83.90% | 78.36% | 90.29% | |
| Spatial + Histogram + Frequency | 87.08% | 82.73% | 91.92% | |
| DefakeHop [4] | 96.89% | 97.26% | 96.53% | |
| Geo-DefakeHop (Ours) | PixelHop A | 99.88% | 100% | 99.75% |
| PixelHop B | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| PixelHop C | 99.88% | 100% | 99.75% | |
| PixelHops A&B&C | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Method | Features or Designs | F1 score | Precision | Recall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhao | Spatial | 75.81% | 78.15% | 73.61% |
| Histogram | 78.99% | 72.93% | 86.16% | |
| Frequency | 65.84% | 49.07% | ||
| Spatial + Histogram | 86.77% | 82.78% | 91.17% | |
| Spatial + Frequency | 77.02% | 78.75% | 75.36% | |
| Histogram + Frequency | 83.90% | 78.36% | 90.29% | |
| Spatial + Histogram + Frequency | 87.08% | 82.73% | 91.92% | |
| DefakeHop [ | 96.89% | 97.26% | 96.53% | |
| Geo-DefakeHop (Ours) | PixelHop A | 99.88% | 99.75% | |
| PixelHop B | ||||
| PixelHop C | 99.88% | 99.75% | ||
| PixelHops A&B&C |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.