Table 7

Detection performance comparison for images corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise with standard deviation σ = 0.02, 0.06, 0.1. The boldface and the underbar indicate the best and the second-best results, respectively.

Noise σMethodFeatures or DesignsFl scorePrecisionRecall
0.02Zhao et al. [36]Spatial + Histogram83.04%82.41%83.67%
Spatial + Frequency75.63%78.42%73.04%
Histogram + Frequency81.47%76.62%86.98%
Spatial + Histogram + Frequency83.25%81.47%85.11%
DefakeHop [4] 91.84%93.75%90.00%
Geo-DefakeHop (Ours)PixelHop A97.56%96.38%98.77%
PixelHop Β98.90%98.05%99.75%
PixelHop C99.01%98.53%99.50%
PixelHop A&B&C98.65%97.58%99.75%
0.06Zhao et al. [36]Spatial + Histogram80.74%80.94%80.54%
Spatial + Frequency76.39%78.47%74.42%
Histogram + Frequency80.28%75.49%85.71%
Spatial + Histogram + Frequency81.42%79.40%83.55%
DefakeHop [4] 92.78%95.75%90.00%
Geo-DefakeHop (Ours)PixelHop A95.24%93.98%96.53%
PixelHop Β96.59%95.19%98.02%
PixelHop C95.07%94.70%97.28%
PixelHop A&B&C96.59%95.19%98.02%
0.1Zhao et al. [36]Spatial + Histogram81.74%78.42%85.35%
Spatial + Frequency69.05%70.35%67.79%
Histogram + Frequency79.44%74.67%84.86%
Spatial + Histogram + Frequency80.05%77.78%82.46%
DefakeHop [4] 92.63%97.78%88.00%
Geo-DefakeHop (Ours)PixelHop A94.43%92.42%96.53%
PixelHop Β94.88%93.51%96.29%
PixelHop C95.37%93.99%96.78%
PixelHop A&B&C96.10%94.71%97.52%

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal