arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2603.01433cs.CV
收藏

DOCFORGE-BENCH:一个全面的零样本文档伪造检测与分析基准

DOCFORGE-BENCH: A Comprehensive 0-shot Benchmark for Document Forgery Detection and Analysis

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill(北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校);University of California, Irvine(加州大学尔湾分校);Washington University in St. Louis(圣路易斯华盛顿大学);Duke University(杜克大学);University of California, Davis(加州大学戴维斯分校);New York University(纽约大学);Georgetown University(乔治城大学)

Zengqi Zhao, Weidi Xia, En Wei, Yan Zhang, Jane Mo, Tiannan Zhang, Yuanqin Dai, Zexi Chen, Yiran Tao, Simiao Ren

AI总结:

DOCFORGE-BENCH提出首个零样本文档伪造检测基准,揭示校准失败问题,强调阈值适应对实际部署的重要性。

摘要:

我们提出了DOCFORGE-BENCH,首个统一的零样本文档伪造检测基准,评估了14种方法在八个数据集上的表现,涵盖文本篡改、收据伪造和身份文档篡改。不同于以微调为导向的评估如ForensicHub [Du et al., 2025],DOCFORGE-BENCH使用所有方法及其发表的预训练权重,并不进行领域适应——这是一个有意识的设计选择,反映了现实部署场景中从业者缺乏标注文档训练数据的情况。我们的核心发现是普遍存在校准失败问题,在单阈值协议下不可见:方法在像素AUC(≥0.76)上表现中等,但在像素F1上接近零。AUC-F1差距不是辨别失败,而是分数分布偏移:篡改区域在文档图像中只占0.27-4.17%的像素——比自然图像基准少一个数量级,使标准tau=0.5阈值灾难性地校准错误。Oracle-F1是固定阈值像素F1的2-10倍,证实校准而非表示是瓶颈。受控校准实验验证了这一点:在N=10个领域图像上调整单一阈值可恢复39-55%的Oracle-F1差距,证明阈值适应而非重新训练是实际部署的关键缺失步骤。总体而言,评估的方法在不同文档类型上均无法可靠地即开即用,强调文档伪造检测仍是一个未解问题。我们进一步指出,所有八个数据集都早于生成式AI编辑时代;涵盖扩散模型和大语言模型基于的文档伪造的基准代表了现代攻击面的关键开放缺口。

英文摘要:

We present DOCFORGE-BENCH, the first unified zero-shot benchmark for document forgery detection, evaluating 14 methods across eight datasets spanning text tampering, receipt forgery, and identity document manipulation. Unlike fine-tuning-oriented evaluations such as ForensicHub [Du et al., 2025], DOCFORGE-BENCH applies all methods with their published pretrained weights and no domain adaptation -- a deliberate design choice that reflects the realistic deployment scenario where practitioners lack labeled document training data. Our central finding is a pervasive calibration failure invisible under single-threshold protocols: methods achieve moderate Pixel-AUC (>=0.76) yet near-zero Pixel-F1. This AUC-F1 gap is not a discrimination failure but a score-distribution shift: tampered regions occupy only 0.27-4.17% of pixels in document images -- an order of magnitude less than in natural image benchmarks -- making the standard tau=0.5 threshold catastrophically miscalibrated. Oracle-F1 is 2-10x higher than fixed-threshold Pixel-F1, confirming that calibration, not representation, is the bottleneck. A controlled calibration experiment validates this: adapting a single threshold on N=10 domain images recovers 39-55% of the Oracle-F1 gap, demonstrating that threshold adaptation -- not retraining -- is the key missing step for practical deployment. Overall, no evaluated method works reliably out-of-the-box on diverse document types, underscoring that document forgery detection remains an unsolved problem. We further note that all eight datasets predate the era of generative AI editing; benchmarks covering diffusion- and LLM-based document forgeries represent a critical open gap on the modern attack surface.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑