Modeling Fingerprint Presentation Attack Detection Through Transient Liveness Factor-A Person Specific Approach
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
A self-learning, secure and independent open-set solution is essential to be explored to characterise the liveness of fingerprint presentation. Fingerprint spoof presentation classified as live (a Type-I error) is a major problem in a high-security establishment. Type-I error are manifestation of small number of spoof sample. We propose to use only live sample to overcome above challenge. We put forward an adaptive ‘fingerprint presentation attack detection’ (FPAD) scheme using interpretation of live sample. It requires initial high-quality live fingerprint sample of the concerned person. It uses six different image quality metrics as a transient attribute from each live sample and record it as ‘Transient Liveness Factor’ (TLF). Our study also proposes to apply fusion rule to validate scheme with three outlier detection algorithms, one-class support vector machine (SVM), isolation forest and local outlier factor. Proposed study got phenomenal accuracy of 100% in terms of spoof detection, which is an open-set method. Further, this study proposes and discuss open issues on person specific spoof detection on cloud-based solutions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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