Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

InpDiffusion: Image Inpainting Localization via Conditional Diffusion Models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read InpDiffusion reframes image inpainting localization as a conditional mask generation task, using diffusion with semantic and edge guidance to outperform existing methods.

desk verdict Genuinely new diffusion-based IIL method with large reported gains, but the main benchmark's train/test split is unspecified, leaving the SOTA claim uninterpretable until clarified. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02816 v1 pith:QGS5K4T2 submitted 2025-01-06 cs.CV cs.AI

Kai Wang , Shaozhang Niu , Qixian Hao , Jiwei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords imageinpaintinglocalizationconditionaldiffusionmodelsmaskgenerationedgesupervisionmulti-scalefeatureextractionforensicsAI-generateddetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Image inpainting localization (IIL) is usually treated as a pixel classification problem, and the paper argues this makes models overconfident and blind to subtle tampering boundaries. The proposed method, InpDiffusion, instead treats IIL as a conditional mask generation task inside a diffusion model: the denoising process is guided by semantic and edge features extracted from the image, and an edge-supervision loss keeps the stochastic sampling from eroding fine boundaries. The authors claim that this generative formulation, with the Dual-stream Multi-scale Feature Extractor (DMFE), significantly outperforms six state-of-the-art baselines; for example, on the Inpaint32K dataset it reports AUC of 93.7% versus 86.4% for the best baseline on traditional-method inpaintings. A sympathetic reader would care because the method points to a new family of generative, condition-guided detectors for AI-manipulated images, with reported gains across CNN-, GAN-, and diffusion-based inpaintings as well as on real-life datasets.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the conditional denoising network together with its edge-supervision loop. The Adaptive Conditional Network (ACN), built on a Pyramid Vision Transformer backbone, extracts hierarchical features from the concatenation of the image and the current noisy mask, with the diffusion time step injected as a token; its Dual-stream Multi-scale Feature Extractor (DMFE) uses two streams of dilated convolutions with rates $\{3,5,7\}$ in increasing and decreasing order to produce semantic and edge conditions. The Denoising Network (DN) is a U-shaped encoder–decoder with adaptive group normalization, producing both the denoised mask $\hat{x}_0$ and the denoised edge $\hat{e}$ at every step; the loss $L_{\text{total}} = \lambda L_{\text{WBCE+WIoU}}(\hat{x}_0, x_0) + \mu L_{\text{Dice}}(\hat{e}, e)$ balances mask fidelity against edge fidelity. This edge supervision is what allows the model to keep stochastic sampling (which avoids overconfident point estimates) without losing subtle tampering boundaries.

What would settle it

Re-running the Inpaint32K comparison with multiple random seeds and reporting confidence intervals, or evaluating InpDiffusion on an independently constructed inpainting dataset from a different research group, would settle the claim; if the roughly 7-point AUC gap over ECNet shrinks or reverses, the state-of-the-art claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that image inpainting localization is best posed as a generative, conditional mask-generation problem rather than as a discriminative segmentation problem. InpDiffusion trains a denoising network to predict the clean tampering mask $\hat{x}_0$ from a noisy mask, conditioning each denoising step on image semantic features and on edge features extracted by an Adaptive Conditional Network (ACN). A second decoder predicts the inpainted object's edge $\hat{e}$, and a Dice loss supervises this edge prediction, balancing the mask-supervision loss (weighted BCE plus weighted IoU) so that excessive randomness in sampling does not destroy subtle boundaries or cause overconfident mispredictions. The paper further introduces the Dual-stream Multi-scale Feature Extractor (DMFE), a two-stream dilated-convolution module with increasing and decreasing dilation rates, to enrich the semantic and edge conditions. Extensive experiments report state-of-the-art AUC across Inpaint32K, DID, AutoSplice, IMD, and NIST, with ablations showing that both DMFE and edge supervision each contribute to the gains.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim of state-of-the-art performance rests on the assumption that the Inpaint32K benchmark is a fair and representative evaluation, that the six baselines were retrained under comparable conditions, and that the reported point-estimate AUC differences are genuine despite the absence of error bars or significance tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method generalizes as claimed, forensic pipelines can adopt conditional diffusion for a wider class of manipulation-localization tasks, including splicing and copy-move detection.
  • The edge-supervision strategy offers a general recipe for controlling stochastic sampling in conditional diffusion models applied to pixel-level prediction tasks.
  • The reported cross-dataset results imply that pre-training on a diverse inpainting corpus like Inpaint32K can transfer to unseen inpainting techniques and real-world manipulated images.
  • The DMFE design suggests that bidirectional multi-scale dilated convolutions improve conditioning-feature quality for denoising, a component that could be reused in other guided diffusion frameworks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the diffusion sampler can be run multiple times, the architecture naturally supports uncertainty estimates over the predicted mask; the paper does not report such estimates, but they would be a straightforward extension.
  • A direct test of the method's forensic value would be to apply it to images edited by newer generative models not represented in Inpaint32K; the paper does not run this experiment.
  • The main benchmark was created by one of the paper's co-authors, so an independent, externally built inpainting-localization benchmark would be the most convincing check on the claimed state-of-the-art performance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes InpDiffusion, a conditional diffusion framework for image inpainting localization (IIL). The method uses an Adaptive Conditional Network (ACN) with a Dual-stream Multi-scale Feature Extractor (DMFE) to obtain semantic and edge conditions from the inpainted image, and a denoising network that iteratively refines the predicted mask while also predicting the tampered edge under Dice loss supervision. The authors report AUC comparisons against six baselines on Inpaint32K, DID, AutoSplice, IMD, and Nist datasets, including ablations of DMFE and edge supervision, and claim that InpDiffusion significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods while improving generalization and robustness.

Significance. If the empirical evaluation survives scrutiny, the paper makes a useful contribution: it is, to my knowledge, the first to formulate IIL as conditional mask generation via a diffusion process, and the edge-supervision strategy for constraining stochastic sampling is well motivated. The paper also provides component ablations, robustness experiments, and a computational complexity comparison, which are strengths. However, the primary benchmark (Inpaint32K) is co-authored by a member of this group, and the most directly comparable baseline (ECNet) is from the same group; these facts are not disqualifying by themselves, but they raise the bar for clarity of the evaluation protocol. The main empirical claim currently rests on an underspecified training/test split for Inpaint32K, so the headline numbers must be interpreted with caution until that is resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experiments (Inpaint32K protocol)] The paper does not state whether the Inpaint32K experiments in Tables 1 and 3 use a held-out test split. The only explicit split mentioned is 'the other datasets are divided into training and test sets with a 9:1 ratio,' and the paragraph also says the authors 'pre-train our model using 32K inpainted images from the Inpaint32K dataset and evaluate it on the DID dataset.' This wording suggests that all 32K Inpaint32K images may have been used for training, which would make the Table 1 and Table 3 AUC numbers training-fit scores rather than generalization estimates. The authors must specify the exact train/validation/test partition used for Inpaint32K, including how many images of each inpainting type were held out, and confirm that Table 1 reports evaluation only on the held-out portion.
  2. [Implementation Details / Supplementary (hyperparameter selection)] The hyperparameters T=10, SNR Shift=-2log(6), and the lambda:mu=7:3 ratio are selected based on performance on Inpaint32K, as shown in Supplementary Figures A2-A4. If this selection was performed on the same test set used for the AUC numbers in Table 1, the reported results are optimistically biased by selection on the test set. Please clarify whether a separate validation split of Inpaint32K was used for these ablations, or provide a corrected protocol in which hyperparameters are selected on a distinct validation partition and the test set is used only once.
  3. [Table 1 (baseline retraining)] The statement that 'the other baseline models are also retrained using the Inpaint32K' is not supported by concrete training details. No information is given about training epochs, learning rates, input resolutions, or the exact split used for the baselines, and some baselines (e.g., MVSSNet) were originally pretrained on larger datasets. Without a precise and uniform retraining protocol, it is difficult to verify that the six baselines were evaluated under comparable conditions. Please provide a per-baseline description of the retraining setup and any pretrained-model initialization, and report the resulting performance with the same evaluation split as the proposed method.
  4. [Experiments (statistical significance)] Throughout the paper the authors use the word 'significantly' (e.g., 'significantly outperforms,' 'significant superiority'), but no error bars, standard deviations, or statistical tests are reported for any of the AUC values. Since the claimed gains are point estimates from a stochastic training procedure, the authors should either provide confidence intervals or at least repeated-run results, or soften the significance language to avoid implying statistical significance that is not demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Loss Function, Eq. (8)] The notation 'lambda LWBCE + WIoU (x0_hat, x0)' is ambiguous; it should be written as lambda * (LWBCE(x0_hat, x0) + WIoU(x0_hat, x0)) + mu * LDICE(e_hat, e).
  2. [Method, Eq. (5)-(6)] Equations (5) and (6) contain missing parentheses and inconsistent placement of the branch index k, which makes the branch definitions hard to follow; please rewrite them with explicit function arguments.
  3. [Abstract / Introduction] The paper claims that InpDiffusion mitigates overconfidence, but no experiment directly measures confidence calibration or overconfidence (e.g., expected calibration error or reliability diagrams). Adding such an evaluation would substantiate this claim.
  4. [General] There are several typographical issues, including 'avoide' in the Introduction and 'IpnDiffusion' in the Loss Function section; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Primary Inpaint32K benchmark is self-authored and its train/test split is never stated; headline AUCs may be training-fit, though external held-out datasets provide independent support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Experiments — Dataset and Evaluation Protocol; Implementation Details; Tables 1 and 3]
    "Following this, we pre-train our model using 32K inpainted images from the Inpaint32K dataset and evaluate it on the DID dataset. Notably, the other baseline models are also retrained using the Inpaint32K, even if some are pre-trained on larger datasets. It’s important to note that DID is exclusively used as a test set, while the other datasets are divided into training and test sets with a 9:1 ratio."

    The paper never states a train/test split for Inpaint32K. The 32K images used for pre-training are the same dataset on which Table 1 reports AUC (93.7/96.2/95.6/84.3) and on which Table 3 ablation is run, while the only stated held-out protocol covers DID (test-only) and 'the other datasets' (9:1). As written, the headline Inpaint32K numbers are not shown to be predictions; they may be training-fit scores. The hyperparameters (T=10, SNR shift -2log(6), lambda:mu=7:3) were also selected on Inpaint32K, compounding the optimism. Because DID, AutoSplice, IMD, and NIST results are held out, the SOTA claim retains independent support, so this is partial rather than total circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain of InpDiffusion is an empirical supervised pipeline: a PVT backbone extracts semantic/edge conditions, a U-shaped denoising network predicts mask and edge, and Eq. (8) directly supervises both outputs with ground-truth mask/edge maps. No mathematical claim is derived from the data or from an author-unique theorem; the method section is self-contained. The 'prediction' claim is therefore a benchmark claim, not a derivation. The only circularity-adjacent issue is evaluative: the primary benchmark Inpaint32K is authored by co-author Qixian Hao, the strongest baseline ECNet is from the same group, and the paper never states an Inpaint32K train/test split while saying the model is pre-trained on all 32K Inpaint32K images. Consequently Tables 1 and 3 may report training-fit AUCs rather than held-out predictions. This is a genuine missing-support flag, but it is not the whole story: DID is explicitly test-only, and AutoSplice/IMD/NIST use 9:1 splits, all showing consistent improvement. The central SOTA claim therefore has independent empirical content and does not reduce by construction to its inputs. Score 4 reflects the partial, evaluation-level circularity risk rather than a derivation-level one.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard diffusion machinery plus three tuned hyperparameters (loss ratio, sampling steps, SNR shift) and the assumption that the in-house dataset and edge supervision yield transferable improvements. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Sampling steps T = 10
    Selected via ablation in the supplementary (Figure A2); higher T gave no significant improvement.
  • SNR Shift = -2 log(6)
    Selected via ablation (Figure A3) to balance training difficulty and performance.
  • Loss ratio lambda:mu = 7:3
    Mask supervision to edge supervision ratio tuned by ablation (Figure A4).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard DDPM forward and reverse process equations (Eq. 1-4) describe the mask diffusion.
    The paper adopts the DDPM/DDIM framework from Ho et al. 2020 and Song et al. 2020, which is established.
  • domain assumption The reverse process conditioned on image I, using direct x0 prediction with fixed variance, yields the desired mask distribution.
    The paper follows Song et al. 2020 in training ftheta to estimate the denoised mask x0, but does not prove that the learned conditional distribution matches p(x0|I).
  • ad hoc to paper Edge supervision with a Dice loss stabilizes the sampling and preserves boundaries.
    This is the paper's key modeling assumption, introduced to counter excessive stochasticity; no theoretical justification is given, only empirical ablations.
  • domain assumption Inpaint32K is representative of the IIL task and suitable for pretraining and evaluation.
    The dataset was created by co-author Hao (Hao 2024); its representativeness for generalization is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of InpDiffusion: Image Inpainting Localization via Conditional Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGS5K4T2

@misc{pith2026250102816,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: InpDiffusion: Image Inpainting Localization via Conditional Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGS5K4T2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02816}
}
read the original abstract

As artificial intelligence advances rapidly, particularly with the advent of GANs and diffusion models, the accuracy of Image Inpainting Localization (IIL) has become increasingly challenging. Current IIL methods face two main challenges: a tendency towards overconfidence, leading to incorrect predictions; and difficulty in detecting subtle tampering boundaries in inpainted images. In response, we propose a new paradigm that treats IIL as a conditional mask generation task utilizing diffusion models. Our method, InpDiffusion, utilizes the denoising process enhanced by the integration of image semantic conditions to progressively refine predictions. During denoising, we employ edge conditions and introduce a novel edge supervision strategy to enhance the model's perception of edge details in inpainted objects. Balancing the diffusion model's stochastic sampling with edge supervision of tampered image regions mitigates the risk of incorrect predictions from overconfidence and prevents the loss of subtle boundaries that can result from overly stochastic processes. Furthermore, we propose an innovative Dual-stream Multi-scale Feature Extractor (DMFE) for extracting multi-scale features, enhancing feature representation by considering both semantic and edge conditions of the inpainted images. Extensive experiments across challenging datasets demonstrate that the InpDiffusion significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods in IIL tasks, while also showcasing excellent generalization capabilities and robustness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02816 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization results of tampered edges and region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of our InpDiffusion which includes an Adaptive Conditional Network (ACN), and a Denoising Net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustration of Image Semantic and Edge Extrac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of Dual-stream Multi-scale Feature Ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparisons with recent SOTA models in challenging scenarios with different inpainting techniques. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Robustness of seven methods against Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Avrahami, O.; Lischinski, D.; and Fried, O. 2022. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 18208--18218

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Baranchuk, D.; Rubachev, I.; Voynov, A.; Khrulkov, V.; and Babenko, A. 2021. Label-efficient semantic segmentation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03126

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Barglazan, A.-A.; Brad, R.; and Constantinescu, C. 2024. Image Inpainting forgery detection: a review. Journal of Imaging, 10(2): 42

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    L.; and Sapiro, G

    Bertalmio, M.; Bertozzi, A. L.; and Sapiro, G. 2001. Navier-stokes, fluid dynamics, and image and video inpainting. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recogn., 355--362

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    A.; Kornblith, S.; Chen, T.; Parmar, N.; Minderer, M.; and Norouzi, M

    Brempong, E. A.; Kornblith, S.; Chen, T.; Parmar, N.; Minderer, M.; and Norouzi, M. 2022. Denoising pretraining for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4175--4186

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Choi, J.; Kim, S.; Jeong, Y.; Gwon, Y.; and Yoon, S. 2021. Ilvr: Conditioning method for denoising diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.02938

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Chung, H.; Sim, B.; and Ye, J. C. 2022. Come-closer-diffuse-faster: Accelerating conditional diffusion models for inverse problems through stochastic contraction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 12413--12422

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Dhariwal, P.; and Nichol, A. 2021. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 8780--8794

    2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Dong, C.; Chen, X.; Hu, R.; Cao, J.; and Li, X. 2022. Mvss-net: Multi-view multi-scale supervised networks for image manipulation detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(3): 3539--3553

    2022

  2. [10]

    Feng, X.; Xu, Y.; Lu, G.; and Pei, W. 2023. Hierarchical Contrastive Learning for Pattern-Generalizable Image Corruption Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 12076--12085

    2023

  3. [11]

    Gao, S.-H.; Cheng, M.-M.; Zhao, K.; Zhang, X.-Y.; Yang, M.-H.; and Torr, P. 2019. Res2net: A new multi-scale backbone architecture. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(2): 652--662

    2019

  4. [12]

    Guo, Q.; Gao, S.; Zhang, X.; Yin, Y.; and Zhang, C. 2017. Patch-based image inpainting via two-stage low rank approximation. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 24(6): 2023--2036

    2017

  5. [13]

    Guo, X.; Liu, X.; Ren, Z.; Grosz, S.; Masi, I.; and Liu, X. 2023. Hierarchical fine-grained image forgery detection and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3155--3165

    2023

  6. [14]

    Hao, Q. 2024. Inpaint32K Inpaint 2024 Datasets. https://github.com/QixianHao/Inpaint32K_dataset. [Online; accessed 5 August 2024]

    2024

  7. [15]

    Hao, Q.; Ren, R.; Wang, K.; Niu, S.; Zhang, J.; and Wang, M. 2024. EC-Net: General image tampering localization network based on edge distribution guidance and contrastive learning. Knowledge-Based Systems, 293: 111656

    2024

  8. [16]

    Herling, J.; and Broll, W. 2014. High-quality real-time video inpaintingwith PixMix. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 20(6): 866--879

    2014

  9. [17]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 6840--6851

    2020

  10. [18]

    Hoogeboom, E.; Heek, J.; and Salimans, T. 2023. simple diffusion: End-to-end diffusion for high resolution images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11093

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Huang, J.; Kang, S.; Ahuja, N.; and Kopf, J. 2014. Image completion using planar structure guidance. ACM Trans. Graph., 33(4): 1--10

    2014

  12. [20]

    Ji, K.; Chen, F.; Guo, X.; Xu, Y.; Wang, J.; and Chen, J. 2023. Uncertainty-guided learning for improving image manipulation detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 22456--22465

    2023

  13. [21]

    Jia, S.; Huang, M.; Zhou, Z.; Ju, Y.; Cai, J.; and Lyu, S. 2023. Autosplice: A text-prompt manipulated image dataset for media forensics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 893--903

    2023

  14. [22]

    Kwon, M.-J.; Yu, I.-J.; Nam, S.-H.; and Lee, H.-K. 2021. CAT-Net: Compression artifact tracing network for detection and localization of image splicing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 375--384

    2021

  15. [23]

    Lee, S.; Chung, H.; Kim, J.; and Ye, J. C. 2022. Progressive deblurring of diffusion models for coarse-to-fine image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.11192

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Li, H.; Yang, Y.; Chang, M.; Chen, S.; Feng, H.; Xu, Z.; Li, Q.; and Chen, Y. 2022. Srdiff: Single image super-resolution with diffusion probabilistic models. Neurocomputing, 479: 47--59

    2022

  17. [25]

    Liu, X.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; and Liu, X. 2022. PSCC-Net: Progressive spatio-channel correlation network for image manipulation detection and localization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32(11): 7505--7517

    2022

  18. [26]

    Loshchilov, I.; and Hutter, F. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In ICLR

    2019

  19. [27]

    Z.; and Ebrahimi, M

    Nazeri, K.; Ng, E.; Joseph, T.; Qureshi, F. Z.; and Ebrahimi, M. 2019. EdgeConnect: generative image inpainting with adversarial edge learning. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. Workshop

    2019

  20. [28]

    Q.; and Dhariwal, P

    Nichol, A. Q.; and Dhariwal, P. 2021. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International conference on machine learning, 8162--8171. PMLR

    2021

  21. [29]

    F.; Bhaumik, K

    Niloy, F. F.; Bhaumik, K. K.; Woo, S. S.; and . 2023. CFL-Net: image forgery localization using contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 4642--4651

    2023

  22. [30]

    NIST. 2016. NIST Nimble 2016 Datasets. https://www.nist.gov/itl/iad/mig/. [Online; accessed 2 August 2024]

    2016

  23. [31]

    Novozamsky, A.; Mahdian, B.; and Saic, S. 2020. IMD2020: A large-scale annotated dataset tailored for detecting manipulated images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops, 71--80

    2020

  24. [32]

    Park, S.; Moon, S.; Park, S.; and Kim, J. 2024. Localization and manipulation of immoral visual cues for safe text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 4675--4684

    2024

  25. [33]

    Ren, R.; Hao, Q.; Niu, S.; Xiong, K.; Zhang, J.; and Wang, M. 2023. MFI-Net: Multi-Feature Fusion Identification Networks for Artificial Intelligence Manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 34(2): 1266--1280

    2023

  26. [34]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  27. [35]

    Shi, Z.; Chen, H.; Zhang, D.; and . 2023. Transformer-auxiliary neural networks for image manipulation localization by operator inductions. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 33(9): 4907--4920

    2023

  28. [36]

    Song, J.; Meng, C.; and Ermon, S. 2020. Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models. In ICLR

    2020

  29. [37]

    J.; and Elmegreen, B

    Wang, C.; Yeo, K.; Jin, X.; Codas, A.; Klein, L. J.; and Elmegreen, B. 2021. S3rp: Self-supervised super-resolution and prediction for advection-diffusion process. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.04639

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Wang, W.; Xie, E.; Li, X.; Fan, D.-P.; Song, K.; Liang, D.; Lu, T.; Luo, P.; and Shao, L. 2022. Pvt v2: Improved baselines with pyramid vision transformer. Computational Visual Media, 8(3): 415--424

    2022

  31. [39]

    Wei, J.; Wang, S.; and Huang, Q. 2020. F ^3 Net: fusion, feedback and focus for salient object detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, 12321--12328

    2020

  32. [40]

    G.; and Milanfar, P

    Whang, J.; Delbracio, M.; Talebi, H.; Saharia, C.; Dimakis, A. G.; and Milanfar, P. 2022. Deblurring via stochastic refinement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 16293--16303

    2022

  33. [41]

    Wolleb, J.; Bieder, F.; Sandk \"u hler, R.; and Cattin, P. C. 2022. Diffusion models for medical anomaly detection. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 35--45. Springer

    2022

  34. [42]

    Wu, H.; and Zhou, J. 2021. IID-Net: Image inpainting detection network via neural architecture search and attention. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32(3): 1172--1185

    2021

  35. [43]

    Wu, H.; Zhou, J.; and Li, Y. 2020. Deep generative model for image inpainting with local binary pattern learning and spatial attention. preprint arXiv:2009.01031

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Wu, Y.; AbdAlmageed, W.; Natarajan, P.; and . 2019. Mantra-net: Manipulation tracing network for detection and localization of image forgeries with anomalous features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 9543--9552

    2019

  37. [45]

    M.; and Willcocks, C

    Wyatt, J.; Leach, A.; Schmon, S. M.; and Willcocks, C. G. 2022. Anoddpm: Anomaly detection with denoising diffusion probabilistic models using simplex noise. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 650--656

    2022

  38. [46]

    Xie, E.; Wang, W.; Wang, W.; Ding, M.; Shen, C.; and Luo, P. 2020. Segmenting transparent objects in the wild. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XIII 16, 696--711. Springer

    2020

  39. [47]

    Xu, D.; Shen, X.; and Lyu, Y. 2023. UP-Net: Uncertainty-Supervised Parallel Network for Image Manipulation Localization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 33(11): 6390--6403

    2023

  40. [48]

    Y.; Li, X

    Yan, Z. Y.; Li, X. M.; Li, M.; Zuo, W. M.; and Shan, S. G. 2018. Shift-net: image inpainting via deep feature rearrangement. In Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., 1--17

    2018

  41. [49]

    H.; Lin, Z.; Yang, J

    Yu, J. H.; Lin, Z.; Yang, J. M.; Shen, X. H.; Lu, X.; and Huang, T. S. 2018. Generative image inpainting with contextual attention. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recogn., 5505--5514

    2018

  42. [50]

    H.; Lin, Z.; Yang, J

    Yu, J. H.; Lin, Z.; Yang, J. M.; Shen, X. H.; Lu, X.; and Huang, T. S. 2019. Free-form image inpainting with gated convolution. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 4471--4480

    2019

  43. [51]

    Yu, T.; Guo, Z.; Jin, X.; Wu, S.; Chen, Z.; Li, W.; Zhang, Z.; and Liu, S. 2020. Region normalization for image inpainting. In Proc. AAAI Conf. Arti. Intell., 12733--12740

    2020

  44. [52]

    Zeng, Y.; Fu, J.; Chao, H.; and Guo, B. 2022. Aggregated contextual transformations for high-resolution image inpainting. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(7): 3266--3280

    2022

  45. [53]

    Zhang, X.; Li, R.; Yu, J.; Xu, Y.; Li, W.; and Zhang, J. 2024. Editguard: Versatile image watermarking for tamper localization and copyright protection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 11964--11974

    2024

  46. [54]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  47. [55]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.