Modeling Fingerprint Presentation Attack Detection Through Transient Liveness Factor-A Person Specific Approach
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".