Skip to main content

Table 3 Validation accuracy for various validation sets after training on IFSTC data set

From: Printing and scanning investigation for image counter forensics

 

Bayar2016

Xception

Proposed model

Original (6c)

0.9979

0.9916

0.993

Dell (6c)

0.1643

0.1632

0.1673

Xerox1 (6c)

0.1976

0.201

0.1827

Xerox2 (6c)

0.1972

0.202

0.1953

Original (4c)

0.9948

0.9954

0.997

Dell (4c)

0.2571

0.223

0.2347

Xerox1 (4c)

0.2411

0.246

0.2367

Xerox2 (4c)

0.2387

0.255

0.2393

JPEG (4c)

0.4255

0.5126

0.4825

  1. We note that although all three models perform exceptionally well on the original IFSTC data set, each performs little better than random when evaluated on images from any of the three printers. Because JPEG compression and Bilinear Resampling (RS) could be reasonably inferred to be similar to printing and scanning, we remove these classes and train and evaluate on a restricted set of four classes (4c) (see Sect. 4). Despite this restricted set of manipulations, however, the models perform no better than random