Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

TipSegNet: Fingertip Segmentation in Contactless Fingerprint Imaging

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read TipSegNet segments all four fingertips from one hand image with 0.999 accuracy.

desk verdict Sensible engineering result, but the SOTA claim rests on a micro-averaged mIoU that isn't comparable to the cited baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05076 v1 pith:5SQWHR4P submitted 2025-01-09 cs.CV cs.LG

Laurenz Ruzicka , Bernhard Kohn , Clemens Heitzinger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords fingertipsegmentationcontactlessfingerprintsemanticResNeXtFeaturePyramidNetworkdeeplearningbiometricsdataaugmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

TipSegNet is a deep learning model that segments all four fingertips directly from a single grayscale hand image, without a separate finger-detection step. The paper claims it reaches a mean Intersection over Union of 0.987 and an accuracy of 0.999 on a held-out test set, surpassing previously published whole-hand and single-finger segmentation methods. This matters because contactless fingerprint recognition depends on precise fingertip masks for pose correction and matching, and removing the detection stage simplifies the pipeline. The authors argue the gains come from a ResNeXt-101 backbone with a Feature Pyramid Network decoder plus heavy data augmentation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combination of a ResNeXt-101 32×48d backbone, whose cardinality (32 parallel convolutional paths per block) captures richer feature interactions, with a Feature Pyramid Network that builds a multi-scale feature hierarchy through top-down pathways and lateral connections. The FPN produces independent predictions at each of the four backbone layers, upsamples them to a common resolution, sums them, and feeds the sum to a lightweight segmentation head. Transfer learning starts from weights pretrained on a large weakly supervised Instagram dataset, and training optimizes the Jaccard (IoU) loss. The design lets the network segment fingertips at varying scales and poses directly from the whole hand.

What would settle it

Run TipSegNet on an independently collected set of hand images with diverse backgrounds, lighting, and skin tones; if mIoU falls well below 0.987, the claimed generalization is not robust. Equally decisive: check whether the 224 test images contain any hands whose identities also appear among the 1,788 training images—overlap would inflate the reported metrics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a segmentation network built from a ResNeXt-101 32×48d encoder and a Feature Pyramid Network decoder, trained with aggressive geometric and photometric augmentation, can label nine classes—background plus the four fingertips of each hand—in whole-hand contactless images with near-saturated accuracy. On a test set of 224 images, TipSegNet attains mIoU 0.987, accuracy 0.999, F1 0.994, and recall 0.994, outperforming both two-class whole-hand segmentation approaches (Otsu, color histogram, Gaussian mixture, Mask R-CNN, DeepLabv3+) and single-finger methods (color-texture, mean shift, U-Net, EfficientNet, SqueezeNet). The paper also reports ablation studies showing that the ResNeXt-101 backbone gives only a small edge over ResNet-34/50/101 and that data augmentation barely changes the metrics, while raising training loss. The authors consequently note that the task is near saturation and that smaller backbones may be a more practical choice.

Load-bearing premise

The reported near-perfect scores assume the 224 test images are representative of real contactless captures and are correctly annotated, with no subjects shared between training and test sets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Contactless fingerprint systems can drop the separate finger-detection stage, since TipSegNet outputs pixel masks for all four fingertips in one forward pass.
  • Downstream pose correction, unwarping, and minutiae matching receive cleaner fingertip regions, which should improve recognition accuracy.
  • The ablation results imply that a ResNet-34 or ResNet-50 backbone under the same FPN decoder achieves almost the same accuracy, so a practical deployment could use a far smaller model.
  • Because metrics are near saturation, the paper implies future progress needs harder datasets—more varied backgrounds, lighting, and skin tones—not bigger backbones.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The very small gap between ResNet-34 and ResNeXt-101 suggests the 224-image test set may be too easy to discriminate model quality; a more challenging benchmark would likely produce a larger spread.
  • The model could be used to auto-label large contactless datasets, a direction the authors mention only as future work; that would let smaller student models train on far more data.
  • If augmented training barely changes test metrics but changes training loss, the augmentation may mainly act as a regularizer; testing on out-of-distribution images would reveal whether the claimed robustness actually comes from augmentation.
  • The reported accuracy of 0.999 should not be read as deployment-ready error-free segmentation; on video frames or unusual poses the error rate could be much higher.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. TipSegNet proposes a ResNeXt-101 encoder with a Feature Pyramid Network decoder for segmenting eight fingertip classes plus background directly from whole-hand grayscale images. The authors train on a mix of 220 images from their prior work [29] and 2,037 in-house smartphone images, apply a stochastic augmentation pipeline, and report micro-averaged mIoU=0.987, accuracy=0.999, and F1=0.994 on a 224-image test set. Ablation studies varying augmentation strength and backbone (ResNet-34/50/101 vs. ResNeXt-101) are reported. The paper claims state-of-the-art performance over both whole-hand and single-finger segmentation methods.

Significance. If the reported numbers were computed with the same protocol as the cited baselines and on a fair test set, a deep model that segments all four fingertips in one pass with near-perfect overlap would be a practically useful contribution to contactless fingerprint preprocessing. The paper is honest about model-size trade-offs and includes ablation experiments, which is good practice. However, the significance is currently undercut by three issues: the headline metric is a micro-averaged global pixel IoU, not the standard mean-per-class mIoU used in the cited literature; the comparison table takes baseline numbers from other papers and other datasets; and the test-set construction is insufficiently described. No code or data is released, so independent verification of the central claim is not possible from the manuscript alone.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II-B, Table III, Abstract] The abstract and conclusion claim state-of-the-art results based on mIoU=0.987 and accuracy=0.999, but Section II-B states that micro-averaging is used for all metrics. With nine classes of which background is likely the majority, micro-averaged IoU is the global pixel IoU, not the mean-per-class mIoU reported in the cited baseline papers. Consequently, the headline numbers are inflated by background agreement and are not comparable with the mIoU values in Table III. Please report macro-averaged per-class mIoU, per-class IoU for each of the eight fingertip classes, and accuracy computed on non-background pixels or with class-balanced aggregation, and explain how Eq. (1) is extended to the multi-class setting.
  2. [Table III] None of the baseline methods in Table III were run on the authors' test set; the numbers are taken from the respective publications, which used different datasets, sensors, annotation protocols, and class definitions (e.g., Otsu and color-histogram methods segment only hand versus background, while U-Net/EfficientNet/SqueezeNet operate on single fingers). The bold 'highest scores' in each group therefore do not establish that TipSegNet 'outperforms existing methods.' To support the SOTA claim, the authors should either run the baselines on their own test set with the same evaluation code or restrict the claims to a descriptive comparison and explicitly discuss the non-comparability.
  3. [Section II-B] The data description is internally inconsistent: the text says 220 images from [29] plus 2,037 in-house images, totaling 2,257, but the stated split sums to 1,788 + 224 + 224 = 2,236, leaving 21 images unaccounted for. In addition, the paper does not specify whether the split is by subject or by image; if multiple images per subject exist in the 2,257-image pool, random image-level splitting can cause identity leakage and inflate the test metrics. The test set is only 224 images, and no confidence intervals or significance tests are provided. Please clarify the split procedure, account for all images, and report error bars or per-class variability.
  4. [Tables IV and V] The ablation studies are reported as single runs with no variance information, and all configurations achieve nearly identical micro-averaged metrics (Accuracy 0.997-0.999, IoU 0.976-0.987). The text nevertheless concludes that ResNeXt-101 'does offer improvements' and that augmentation 'plays a critical role in preventing overfitting,' but these conclusions are not supported by the table: the no-augmentation model achieves the same accuracy and IoU as the fully augmented model, and the discussion even notes that the no-augmentation training loss was lowest. Multiple seeds with mean and standard deviation, or a statistical test, are needed before attributing differences to the architectural or augmentation choices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I] The total parameter count is inconsistent with the sum of its parts: the encoder (8.264e8), decoder (2.608e6), and segmentation head (1,161) sum to about 8.29e8, but the table reports '828.965 * 10^8', which is off by orders of magnitude and does not match the 829-million figure used in the discussion.
  2. [Section III and Discussion] The F1 score is reported as 0.993 in the Results section but as 0.994 in the Discussion and in Tables IV and V; please standardize the value.
  3. [Section II-B and Figure 4] The text says all metrics are calculated on the test set, but Figure 4 shows results from the validation set; please clarify which set was used for the qualitative examples and for the ablation tables.
  4. [Section II-A3] The training description gives one exact epoch count (853) and later refers to 'around 850 epochs' for the ablation backbones; reporting exact epoch counts and random seeds for all runs would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says 'class 0 describes the separation of the fingers from the background,' which is confusing because class 0 is the background class; rephrase to state that class 0 is the background label.
  6. [Section III, Table IV/V] The tables label the metric 'IoU' while the text calls it 'mIoU'; given that micro-averaging is used, the metric should be named consistently and its exact definition stated in every table caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline segmentation scores come from a held-out test set, and the author-overlap citation is dataset provenance rather than a load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

TipSegNet is an empirical deep-learning study. The reported mIoU of 0.987 and accuracy of 0.999 are computed on a 224-image test set that the paper states was not shown to the model during training, so the central result is an independent evaluation rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Training with a Jaccard/IoU loss and then reporting IoU on held-out data is a standard evaluation protocol, not a self-definitional reduction. The only author-overlap citation is reference [29], used as a source of 220 annotated hand images and as one set of comparison numbers in Table III; this is dataset provenance and benchmark reporting, and it does not define the claimed result into existence. The micro-averaging choice for metrics may affect comparability with per-class mIoU values from other publications, but that is a measurement-convention concern, not circularity. No equation, definition, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz is imported from a self-citation in a way that forces the reported outcome. The central quantitative claim is grounded in an independent test split, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities or physical quantities are introduced. The free parameters are standard training hyperparameters, none fitted to the test set. The key assumptions are about dataset representativeness and annotation quality, which are not verified in the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • learning rate = 8e-5
    Chosen by hand; affects convergence and final performance, but standard for SGD.
  • batch size = 8
    Chosen by hand; constrained by GPU memory.
  • training epochs = 853
    Stopped early based on diminishing validation improvements; arbitrary stopping point.
  • augmentation probability = 0.5
    Each augmentation applied with 50% probability; chosen by hand, no sensitivity study.
  • rotation range = -60 to 60 degrees
    Chosen by hand to simulate pose variation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Manual annotations of 2,257 hand images are accurate ground truth.
    The entire evaluation relies on the correctness of human-labeled fingertip masks. No inter-annotator agreement or quality control is reported.
  • domain assumption The 224-image test set is representative of real contactless fingerprint captures.
    If the test set is biased toward easy or homogeneous images, the reported metrics will not reflect real-world performance.
  • domain assumption Pretrained ResNeXt-101 weights from the Instagram dataset transfer to grayscale fingertip segmentation.
    Transfer learning is assumed beneficial; no experiments compare random initialization, though transfer is standard practice.
  • standard math The Jaccard loss is a suitable objective for this segmentation task.
    The loss directly optimizes IoU, a common choice for segmentation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TipSegNet: Fingertip Segmentation in Contactless Fingerprint Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SQWHR4P

@misc{pith2026250105076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TipSegNet: Fingertip Segmentation in Contactless Fingerprint Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SQWHR4P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05076}
}
read the original abstract

Contactless fingerprint recognition systems offer a hygienic, user-friendly, and efficient alternative to traditional contact-based methods. However, their accuracy heavily relies on precise fingertip detection and segmentation, particularly under challenging background conditions. This paper introduces TipSegNet, a novel deep learning model that achieves state-of-the-art performance in segmenting fingertips directly from grayscale hand images. TipSegNet leverages a ResNeXt-101 backbone for robust feature extraction, combined with a Feature Pyramid Network (FPN) for multi-scale representation, enabling accurate segmentation across varying finger poses and image qualities. Furthermore, we employ an extensive data augmentation strategy to enhance the model's generalizability and robustness. TipSegNet outperforms existing methods, achieving a mean Intersection over Union (mIoU) of 0.987 and an accuracy of 0.999, representing a significant advancement in contactless fingerprint segmentation. This enhanced accuracy has the potential to substantially improve the reliability and effectiveness of contactless biometric systems in real-world applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05076 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples from the training set with added augmentations. Input im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model architecture. ResNeXt part is encircled by the dashed, green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training and validation loss over training epochs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Four exemplary segmentation results from the validation set. Class 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Improving Sensor Interoperability between Contactless and Contact-Based Fingerprints Using Pose Correction and Unwarping

    Laurenz Ruzicka, Dominik S ¨ollinger, Bernhard Kohn, Clemens Heitzinger, Andreas Uhl, and Bernhard Strobl. Improving Sensor Interoperability between Contactless and Contact-Based Fingerprints Using Pose Correction and Unwarping. IET Biometrics, 2023:7519499, Dec. 2023. Publisher: Hindawi

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    SegNet: A Deep Convolutional Encoder-Decoder Architecture for Image Segmen- tation

    Vijay Badrinarayanan, Alex Kendall, and Roberto Cipolla. SegNet: A Deep Convolutional Encoder-Decoder Architecture for Image Segmen- tation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 39(12):2481–2495, Dec. 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Segmentation of Fingerprint Images

    Asker M Bazen and Sabih H Gerez. Segmentation of Fingerprint Images. 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [3]

    Squeeze U-Net: A Memory and Energy Efficient Image Segmentation Network

    Nazanin Beheshti and Lennart Johnsson. Squeeze U-Net: A Memory and Energy Efficient Image Segmentation Network. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 1495–1504, Seattle, W A, USA, June 2020. IEEE

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Towards smartphone- based touchless fingerprint recognition

    Parmeshwar Birajadar, Meet Haria, Pranav Kulkarni, Shubham Gupta, Prasad Joshi, Brijesh Singh, and Vikram Gadre. Towards smartphone- based touchless fingerprint recognition. S¯adhan¯a, 44(7):161, July 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    DeepLab: Semantic Image Segmentation with Deep Convolutional Nets, Atrous Convolution, and Fully Connected CRFs

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Mur- phy, and Alan Yuille. DeepLab: Semantic Image Segmentation with Deep Convolutional Nets, Atrous Convolution, and Fully Connected CRFs. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , PP, June 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Face Detection Using R-FCN Based Deformable Convolutional Networks

    Qiaosong Chen, Fahai Shen, Yuanyuan Ding, Panhao Gong, Ya Tao, and Jin Wang. Face Detection Using R-FCN Based Deformable Convolutional Networks. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , pages 4165–4170, Oct. 2018. ISSN: 2577-1655

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Mahmud Chowdhury and Masudul Imtiaz

    A.M. Mahmud Chowdhury and Masudul Imtiaz. Contactless Fingerprint Recognition Using Deep Learning—A Systematic Review. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy , 2:714–730, Sept. 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Ear Images Classification Based on Data Aug- mentation and ResNeXt50

    Thinh Le Duc, Linh Nguyen Hoang Anh, Trung Nguyen Quoc, and Vinh Truong Hoang. Ear Images Classification Based on Data Aug- mentation and ResNeXt50. In Ajith Abraham, Thomas Hanne, Niketa Gandhi, Pooja Manghirmalani Mishra, Anu Bajaj, and Patrick Siarry, editors, Proceedings o...

    2022

  2. [9]

    A Review on Deep Learning Techniques Applied to Semantic Segmentation, Apr

    Alberto Garcia-Garcia, Sergio Orts-Escolano, Sergiu Oprea, Victor Villena-Martinez, and Jose Garcia-Rodriguez. A Review on Deep Learning Techniques Applied to Semantic Segmentation, Apr. 2017. arXiv:1704.06857 [cs]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Under- standing Deep Learning Techniques for Image Segmentation, July 2019

    Swarnendu Ghosh, Nibaran Das, Ishita Das, and Ujjwal Maulik. Under- standing Deep Learning Techniques for Image Segmentation, July 2019. arXiv:1907.06119 [cs]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Grosz, Joshua J

    Steven A. Grosz, Joshua J. Engelsma, Eryun Liu, and Anil K. Jain. C2CL: Contact to Contactless Fingerprint Matching, Dec. 2021. arXiv:2104.02811 [cs, eess]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Mask R-CNN

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick. Mask R-CNN. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 2980–2988, Oct. 2017. ISSN: 2380-7504

    2017

  6. [13]

    Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition, Dec

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition, Dec. 2015. arXiv:1512.03385 [cs]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network, Mar

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network, Mar. 2015. arXiv:1503.02531 [cs, stat]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Segmentation Models Pytorch, 2019

    Pavel Iakubovskii. Segmentation Models Pytorch, 2019

    2019

  9. [16]

    Semantic Segmentation of Clothes in the Context of Soft Biometrics Using Deep Learning Methods

    Andrei De Souza In ´acio, Anderson Brilhador, and Heitor Silv´erio Lopes. Semantic Segmentation of Clothes in the Context of Soft Biometrics Using Deep Learning Methods. In Anais do 14. Congresso Brasileiro de Intelig ˆencia Computacional , pages 1–7. ABRICOM, Jan. 2020

    2020

  10. [17]

    Towards Using Police Officers’ Business Smartphones for Con- tactless Fingerprint Acquisition and Enabling Fingerprint Comparison against Contact-Based Datasets

    Christof Kauba, Dominik S ¨ollinger, Simon Kirchgasser, Axel Weis- senfeld, Gustavo Fern ´andez Dom´ınguez, Bernhard Strobl, and Andreas Uhl. Towards Using Police Officers’ Business Smartphones for Con- tactless Fingerprint Acquisition and Enabling Fingerprint Comparison again...

    2021

  11. [18]

    Contactless fingerprint recognition: A neural approach for perspective and rotation effects reduction

    Ruggero Donida Labati, Angelo Genovese, Vincenzo Piuri, and Fabio Scotti. Contactless fingerprint recognition: A neural approach for perspective and rotation effects reduction. In 2013 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Biometrics and Identity Management (CIBIM), ...

    2013

  12. [19]

    Prepro- cessing of a Fingerprint Image Captured with a Mobile Camera

    Chulhan Lee, Sanghoon Lee, Jaihie Kim, and Sung-Jae Kim. Prepro- cessing of a Fingerprint Image Captured with a Mobile Camera. In David Zhang and Anil K. Jain, editors, Advances in Biometrics , pages 348–355, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. Springer

    2005

  13. [20]

    Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detection, Apr

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Doll ´ar, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Har- iharan, and Serge Belongie. Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detection, Apr. 2017. arXiv:1612.03144 [cs]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Lucio, Rayson Laroca, Luiz A

    Diego R. Lucio, Rayson Laroca, Luiz A. Zanlorensi, Gladston Moreira, and David Menotti. Simultaneous Iris and Periocular Region Detection Using Coarse Annotations. In 2019 32nd SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images (SIBGRAPI) , pages 178–185, Oct. 2019. ISSN: 2377-5416

    2019

  15. [22]

    Exploring the Limits of Weakly Supervised Pretraining, May

    Dhruv Mahajan, Ross Girshick, Vignesh Ramanathan, Kaiming He, Manohar Paluri, Yixuan Li, Ashwin Bharambe, and Laurens van der Maaten. Exploring the Limits of Weakly Supervised Pretraining, May

  16. [23]

    M. G. Sarwar Murshed, Syed Konain Abbas, Sandip Purnapatra, Daqing Hou, and Faraz Hussain. Deep Learning-Based Approaches for Contactless Fingerprints Segmentation and Extraction, Nov. 2023. arXiv:2311.15163 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    M. G. Sarwar Murshed, Keivan Bahmani, Stephanie Schuckers, and Faraz Hussain. Deep Age-Invariant Fingerprint Segmentation System, Mar. 2023. arXiv:2303.03341 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Mobile Contactless Fingerprint Recognition: Implementation, Performance and Usability Aspects

    Jannis Priesnitz, Rolf Huesmann, Christian Rathgeb, Nicolas Buchmann, and Christoph Busch. Mobile Contactless Fingerprint Recognition: Implementation, Performance and Usability Aspects. Sensors, 22(3):792, Jan. 2022. Number: 3 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2022

  19. [26]

    Deep Learning-Based Semantic Segmentation for Touchless Fingerprint Recognition

    Jannis Priesnitz, Christian Rathgeb, Nicolas Buchmann, and Christoph Busch. Deep Learning-Based Semantic Segmentation for Touchless Fingerprint Recognition. In Alberto Del Bimbo, Rita Cucchiara, Stan Sclaroff, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Tao Mei, Marco Bertini, Hugo Jair Escalan...

    2021

  20. [27]

    Raghavendra, Christoph Busch, and Bian Yang

    R. Raghavendra, Christoph Busch, and Bian Yang. Scaling-robust fingerprint verification with smartphone camera in real-life scenarios. In 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS) , pages 1–8, Arlington, V A, USA, Sept

    2013

  21. [28]

    U-Net: Con- volutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-Net: Con- volutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In Nassir Navab, Joachim Hornegger, William M. Wells, and Alejandro F. Frangi, editors, Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 20...

    2015

  22. [30]

    Optimizing contactless to contact- based fingerprint comparison using simple parametric warping models

    Dominik Sollinger and Andreas Uhl. Optimizing contactless to contact- based fingerprint comparison using simple parametric warping models. In 2021 IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB) , pages 1–7, Shenzhen, China, Aug. 2021. IEEE

    2021

  23. [31]

    Towards More Accurate Contactless Fingerprint Minutiae Extraction and Pose-Invariant Matching

    Hanzhuo Tan and Ajay Kumar. Towards More Accurate Contactless Fingerprint Minutiae Extraction and Pose-Invariant Matching. IEEE Transactions on Information F orensics and Security , 15:3924–3937,

  24. [32]

    Mingxing Tan and Quoc V . Le. EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks, Sept. 2020. arXiv:1905.11946 [cs, stat]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A Collaborative Approach using Ridge- Valley Minutiae for More Accurate Contactless Fingerprint Identifica- tion

    Ritesh Vyas and Ajay Kumar. A Collaborative Approach using Ridge- Valley Minutiae for More Accurate Contactless Fingerprint Identifica- tion. ArXiv, Sept. 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Deep High-Resolution Representation Learning for Visual Recognition

    Jingdong Wang, Ke Sun, Tianheng Cheng, Borui Jiang, Chaorui Deng, Yang Zhao, Dong Liu, Yadong Mu, Mingkui Tan, Xinggang Wang, Wenyu Liu, and Bin Xiao. Deep High-Resolution Representation Learning for Visual Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Knowledge Distillation and Student- Teacher Learning for Visual Intelligence: A Review and New Out- looks

    Lin Wang and Kuk-Jin Yoon. Knowledge Distillation and Student- Teacher Learning for Visual Intelligence: A Review and New Out- looks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 44(6):3048–3068, June 2022. arXiv:2004.05937 [cs]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Blaschko

    Zifu Wang, Xuefei Ning, and Matthew B. Blaschko. Jaccard Metric Losses: Optimizing the Jaccard Index with Soft Labels, Mar. 2024. 9 arXiv:2302.05666 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Case study of the acquisition of contactless fingerprints in a real police setting

    Axel Weissenfeld, Reinhard Schmid, Bernhard Kohn, Bernhard Strobl, and Gustavo Fern ´andez Dom ´ınguez. Case study of the acquisition of contactless fingerprints in a real police setting. In 2022 International Conference of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG) , page...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Aggregated Residual Transformations for Deep Neural Networks

    Saining Xie, Ross Girshick, Piotr Dollar, Zhuowen Tu, and Kaiming He. Aggregated Residual Transformations for Deep Neural Networks. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5987–5995, Honolulu, HI, July 2017. IEEE

    2017

  31. [39]

    Employee Fingerprint Identification Management System Based on Bidirectional ResNext Network with Triplet Loss

    Yuezhi Yang, Qian Yang, Zhihao Su, and Wenlong Wu. Employee Fingerprint Identification Management System Based on Bidirectional ResNext Network with Triplet Loss. In 2024 8th International Confer- ence on Management Engineering, Software Engineering and Service Sciences (ICMSS...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Soweon Yoon and Anil K. Jain. Longitudinal study of fingerprint recog- nition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112(28):8555– 8560, July 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Scaling Vision Transformers, June 2022

    Xiaohua Zhai, Alexander Kolesnikov, Neil Houlsby, and Lucas Beyer. Scaling Vision Transformers, June 2022. arXiv:2106.04560 [cs]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Fingerprint Image Segmentation Using Active Contour Model

    Xiaolong Zheng, Yangsheng Wang, and Xuying Zhao. Fingerprint Image Segmentation Using Active Contour Model. In F ourth International Conference on Image and Graphics (ICIG 2007) , pages 437–441, Aug. 2007

    2007

  35. [324]

    Series Title: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems

    Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2023. Series Title: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems

    2023

  36. [2018]

    arXiv:1805.00932 [cs]

    arXiv

  37. [2020]

    Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.