Fingerprint Liveness Detection Using Multiple Static Features and Random Forests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been demonstrated that fingerprint recognition systems are susceptible to spoofing by presenting a well-duplicated synthetic such as a gummy finger. This paper proposes a novel software-based liveness detection approach using multiple static features. Given a fingerprint image, the static features, including fingerprint coarseness, first-order statistics and intensity-based features, are extracted. Unlike previous methods, the fingerprint coarseness is modeled as multiplicative noise rather than additive noise and is extracted by cepstral analysis. A random forest classifier is employed to select effective features among the extracted features and to differentiate fake from live fingerprints. The proposed method has been evaluated on the standard database provided in the Fingerprint Liveness Detection Competition 2009 (LivDet2009). Compared with other state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method reduces the average classification error rate by more than 20%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it