Exposing digital forgeries in scientific images

ABSTRACT

A recent case of scientific fraud, involving manipulated images in a high-profile scientific publication, has sent shock- waves through the scientific community. By some measures, however, this case is not isolated - in at least one journal, it is estimated that as many as 20% of accepted manuscripts contain figures with inappropriate manipulations, and 1% with fraudulent manipulations. Several scientific editors are considering putting safeguards in place to help reduce these numbers. While sensible policy and awareness are certainly important, there is likely to be a need for computational techniques that automatically detect common forms of tampering. We describe three such techniques for detecting traces of tampering in scientific images. Specifically, image segmentation techniques are employed to detect image deletion, "healing", and duplication.

REFERENCES

• 1: H. Farid and E. Simoncelli. Differentiation of multi-dimensional signals. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13 4):496--508, 2004.
• 2: J. Fridrich, D. Soukal, and J. Lukáš. Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In Proceedings of DFRWS, 2003.
• 3: T. Georgiev. Vision, healing brush, and fiber bundles. In Proceedings of SPIE, San Jose, CA, 2005.
• 4: G. Golub and C. F. V. Loan. Matrix Computations. John Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, 1996.
• 5: W. Hwang, S. I. Roh, B. C. Lee, S. K. Kang, D. K. Kwon, S. Kim, S. J. Kim, S. W. Park, H. S. Kwon, C. K. Lee, J. B. Lee, J. M. Kim, C. Ahn, S. H. Paek, S. S. Chang, J. J. Koo, H. S. Yoon, J. H. Hwang, Y. Y. Hwang, Y. S. Park, S. K. Oh, H. S. Kim, J. H. Park, S. Y. Moon, and G. Schatten. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science, 303(5664):1669--1674, 2004.
• 6: Micah K. Johnson , Hany Farid, Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting, Proceedings of the 7th workshop on Multimedia and security, p.1-10, August 01-02, 2005, New York, NY, USA [doi>10.1145/1073170.1073171]
• 7: D. Kennedy. Editorial retraction. Science, 211(5759):335, 2006.
• 8: J. Lukáš, J. Fridrich, and M. Goljan. Detecting digital image forgeries using sensor pattern noise. In Proceedings of the SPIE, volume 6072, 2006.
• 9: T. Ng and S. Chang. A model for image splicing. In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Singapore, 2004.
• 10: H. Pearson. Image manipulation: CSI: Cell biology. Nature, 434:952--953, 2005.
• 11: A. Popescu and H. Farid. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions. Technical Report TR2004-515, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2004.
• 12: A. Popescu and H. Farid. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of re-sampling. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 53(2):758--767, 2005.
• 13: A. Popescu and H. Farid. Exposing digital forgeries in color filter array interpolated images. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 53(10):3948--3959, 2005.
• 14: M. Rossner and K. Yamada. What's in a picture? the temptation of image manipulation. The Journal of Cell Biology, 166(1):11--15, 2004.
• 15: Jianbo Shi , Jitendra Malik, Normalized Cuts and Image Segmentation, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, v.22 n.8, p.888-905, August 2000 [doi>10.1109/34.868688]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.4 IMAGE PROCESSING AND COMPUTER VISION

General Terms:
Security

Keywords:
digital forensics, digital tampering