Finger Vein Presentation Attack Detection Method Using a Hybridized Gray-Level Co-Occurrence Matrix Feature with Light-Gradient Boosting Machine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presentation Attack Detection (PAD) is crucial in biometric finger vein recognition. The susceptibility of these systems to forged finger vein images is a significant challenge. Existing approaches to mitigate presentation attacks have computational complexity limitations and limited data availability. This study proposed a novel method for identifying presentation attacks in finger vein biometric systems. We have used optimal Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) features with the Light-Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM) classification model. We use statistical texture attributes namely, energy, correlation, and contrast to extract optimal features from counterfeit and authentic finger-vein images. The study investigates cluster-pixel connectivity in finger vein images. Our approach is tested using K-fold cross-validation and compared to existing methods. Results demonstrate that Light-GBM outperforms other classifiers. The proposed classifier achieved low APCER values of 2.73% and 8.80% compared to other classifiers. The use of Light-GBM in addressing presentation attacks in finger vein biometric systems is highly significant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".