Fingerprint Fraud Explainability Using Grad-Cam for Forensic Procedures
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
This paper investigates the application of GradCAM, an explainable AI (XAI) technique, to enhance the transparency and precision of fingerprint authentication systems in forensics, particularly in detecting fingerprint mutilation—a common method used to evade biometric security measures. Employing the SOCOfing dataset, which contains both unaltered and synthetically altered fingerprint images, we apply GradCAM to visualize and understand the decision-making process of a convolutional neural network (CNN) model trained to recognize and classify these alterations. Our study not only demonstrates the model’s effectiveness in identifying different types of fingerprint modifications but also identifies areas where the model’s performance can be enhanced. Through detailed visual analysis, we uncover the model’s focus points and assess its reliability across various alteration types and difficulty levels. The insights gained underline the potential of XAI in improving the robustness and reliability of biometric verification systems, paving the way for more secure and equitable AI applications in high-stakes environments.
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 | 0.001 | 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