Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Fingerprint Presentation Attack Detector Using Global-Local Model

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.12754 v1 pith:TXCCB3UQ submitted 2024-02-20 cs.CV

Fingerprint Presentation Attack Detector Using Global-Local Model

classification cs.CV
keywords modulefingerprintgloballocalspoofnessscoredetectionproposed
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The vulnerability of automated fingerprint recognition systems (AFRSs) to presentation attacks (PAs) promotes the vigorous development of PA detection (PAD) technology. However, PAD methods have been limited by information loss and poor generalization ability, resulting in new PA materials and fingerprint sensors. This paper thus proposes a global-local model-based PAD (RTK-PAD) method to overcome those limitations to some extent. The proposed method consists of three modules, called: 1) the global module; 2) the local module; and 3) the rethinking module. By adopting the cut-out-based global module, a global spoofness score predicted from nonlocal features of the entire fingerprint images can be achieved. While by using the texture in-painting-based local module, a local spoofness score predicted from fingerprint patches is obtained. The two modules are not independent but connected through our proposed rethinking module by localizing two discriminative patches for the local module based on the global spoofness score. Finally, the fusion spoofness score by averaging the global and local spoofness scores is used for PAD. Our experimental results evaluated on LivDet 2017 show that the proposed RTK-PAD can achieve an average classification error (ACE) of 2.28% and a true detection rate (TDR) of 91.19% when the false detection rate (FDR) equals 1.0%, which significantly outperformed the state-of-the-art methods by $\sim$10% in terms of TDR (91.19% versus 80.74%).

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.