Table 6

Detection performance comparison for images resized from 256 × 256 to 128 × 128 and 64 × 64 The boldface and the underbar indicate the best and the second-best results, respectively.

Tile sizeMethodFeatures or DesignsFl scorePrecisionRecall
128 × 128Zhao et al. [36]Spatial77.35%76.61%78.10%
Histogram80.09%75.93%84.72%
Frequency64.14%47.21%100%
Spatial + Histogram88.28%85.81%90.89%
Spatial + Frequency79.79%81.38%78.26%
Histogram + Frequency81.92%76.99%87.53%
Spatial + Histogram + Frequency88.09%86.52%89.71%
DefakeHop [4] 92.63%97.78%88.00%
Geo-DefakeHop (Ours)PixelHop A100%100%100%
PixelHop Β99.88%100%99.75%
PixelHop C99.75%99.75%99.75%
PixelHops A&B&C100%100%100%
64 × 64Zhao et al. [36]Spatial76.46%78.85%74.21%
Histogram81.59%76.60%87.26%
Frequency49.75%79.89%36.12%
Spatial + Histogram88.22%86.15%90.39%
Spatial + Frequency77.46%77.83%77.09%
Histogram + Frequency83.16%77.80%89.32%
Spatial + Histogram + Frequency87.91%83.94%92.29%
DefakeHop [4] 86.60%89.36%84.00%
Geo-DefakeHop (Ours)PixelHop A98.27%98.27%98.27%
PixelHop Β97.39%97.76%97.03%
PixelHop C96.36%97.71%95.05%
PixelHops A&B&C99.01%99.01%99.01%

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal