Liveness Detection and Automatic Template Updating Using Fusion of ECG and Fingerprint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fingerprints have been extensively used for biometric recognition around the world. However, fingerprints are not secrets, and an adversary can synthesis a fake finger to spoof the biometric system. The mainstream of the current fingerprint spoof detection methods are basically binary classifier trained on some real and fake samples. While they perform well on detecting fake samples created by using the same methods used for training, their performance degrades when encountering fake samples created by a novel spoofing method. In this paper, we approach the problem from a different perspective by incorporating electrocardiogram (ECG). Compared with the conventional biometrics, stealing someone's ECG is far more difficult if not impossible. Considering that ECG is a vital signal and motivated by its inherent liveness, we propose to combine it with a fingerprint liveness detection algorithm. The combination is natural as both ECG and fingerprints can be captured from fingertips. In the proposed framework, the ECG and fingerprint are combined not only for authentication purpose but also for liveness detection. We also examine automatic template updating using ECG and fingerprint. In addition, we propose a stopping criterion that reduces the average waiting time for signal acquisition. We have performed extensive experiments on the LivDet2015 database which is presently the latest available liveness detection database and compare the proposed method with six liveness detection methods as well as 12 participants of LivDet2015 competition. The proposed system has achieved a liveness detection equal error rate (EER) of 4.2% incorporating only 5 s of ECG. By extending the recording time to 30 s, liveness detection EER reduces to 2.6% which is about 4 times better than the best of six comparison methods. This is also about 2 times better than the best results achieved by the participants of the LivDet2015 competition.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".