Comparative Experimental Investigation of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Latent Fingerprint Pattern Classification
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
Fingerprint pattern recognition is of great importance in forensic examinations and in helping diagnose some diseases. The automatic realization of fingerprint recognition processes can take time due to the feature extraction process in classical machine learning or deep learning methods. In this study, the effective use of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) in fingerprint pattern recognition and classification, in which feature extraction takes place automatically, was examined experimentally and comparatively. Five DCNN models have been designed and implemented with a transfer learning approach. Four of these five models are Alexnet, Googlenet, Resnet-18, and Squeezenet pre-trained DCNN models. The fifth model is the DCNN model designed from the ground up. It was concluded that the designed DCNN models can be used effectively in fingerprint recognition and classification, and that fast results can be obtained and generalized with advanced DCNN models.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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