Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Empowering Morphing Attack Detection using Interpretable Image-Text Foundation Model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pretrained CLIP model, never fine-tuned on morphs, classifies face images as bona fide or morphed by scoring short text prompts, and the top prompt doubles as a plain-text explanation.

desk verdict Useful CLIP-for-MAD empirical study; the generalization claim outruns the evidence and needs major revision, but it deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10110 v1 pith:P2HPGLSB submitted 2025-08-13 cs.CV cs.AI

Sushrut Patwardhan , Raghavendra Ramachandra , Sushma Venkatesh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords facemorphingattackdetectionzero-shotlearningCLIPtextualexplainabilitymultimodalsingle-imagepromptengineeringprint-scan
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

This paper claims that a single frozen CLIP model—never trained on morphed faces—can detect face morphing attacks in zero-shot mode by comparing each image against a pair of text prompts such as "It is a morphed image" versus "It is not a morphed image." The same comparison produces the explanation: whichever prompt scores highest is returned as the textual reason for the decision, which the authors argue is easier for border guards to act on than a heatmap. They test ten engineered prompts over five morphing generation algorithms and three capture media, and report that short prompts generalize better than long descriptive ones. On digital and high-quality print-scan images, the best prompt yields a lower BPCER at 10% MACER than zero-shot ResNet50, VGG-19, and ViT baselines, while low-quality print-scan causes a steep error rise.

What carries the argument

The shared image-text embedding space of CLIP: an image encoder (ViT) and a text encoder (transformer) project both modalities into a common space, and the system classifies by cosine similarity between the image and each candidate text prompt, normalized by softmax. Prompt engineering is the control variable: short synonym-style prompts align better with CLIP's training distribution and yield the best detection.

What would settle it

Evaluate the same ten prompts on a morphing dataset built from a different face database than FRGC V2 under the same BPCER@MACER=10% metric; if no short prompt matches the digital-medium error rate reported here, or if the prompt ranking collapses, the claim of zero-shot generalization across morphing attacks is refuted. The paper's own low-quality print-scan result (90.87% BPCER at 10% MACER) already marks that regime as a partial failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that zero-shot evaluation of CLIP yields both generalizable morphing attack detection and the most relevant text snippet for a decision. Given a face image, the ViT image encoder of CLIP extracts an embedding; ten crafted textual prompts describing bona fide and morphed images are encoded by the text encoder; a softmax over cosine similarities assigns the image to the prompt with the highest score. The highest-scoring prompt—e.g., "It is a morphed image"—is the textual explanation. In experiments on a morphing dataset built from FRGC V2 with five morphing generators and three media, the best prompt (#5) achieved BPCER@MACER=10% of 29.87% (digital) and 43.15% (high-qualit

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes CLIP's embeddings, learned from general web image-text pairs, rank "morphed image" text closer to morphed faces than to bona fide faces without ever being trained on morphing attacks—an assumption that the paper's own low-quality print-scan results cast doubt on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A working system needs no morphing data or training: any deployment can use the frozen CLIP weights and a prompt pair, so new morphing algorithms can be handled without retraining.
  • The winning text snippet gives non-technical operators a human-readable explanation, replacing noisy heatmap-based interpretability.
  • Short prompts crafted to resemble CLIP's web-training text should be preferred; longer explanatory sentences hurt detection accuracy.
  • Digital and high-quality print-scan images are detectable, but low-quality print-scan is a failure regime that any real rollout must handle separately.
  • Zero-shot CLIP establishes a new baseline for language-guided morphing detection, outperforming zero-shot ResNet50, VGG-19, and ViT on digital and high-quality print-scan images.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the digital-medium results transfer to other datasets, CLIP's general language-image alignment has implicitly learned facial blending artifacts, suggesting frozen CLIP features could serve as a fixed front-end for unsupervised detection of unseen morphing algorithms.
  • The steep low-quality print-scan failure implies the zero-shot signal rides on high-frequency texture cues; sharpening or preprocessing the image before CLIP could be a cheap, testable fix.
  • Because the text side is frozen and prompt-dependent, the mechanism can be ported across languages by translating the prompts alone, giving localized textual explanations without touching the vision model.
  • The same prompt-ranking logic extends to other description-friendly face attacks (presentation attacks, deepfakes), unifying zero-shot textual explainability across biometric attack types.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a zero-shot single-image morphing attack detection (S-MAD) framework based on CLIP, in which a facial image is compared against handcrafted textual prompts for 'bona fide' and 'morphed' classes. The authors claim that, without any training on morphing data, CLIP can both detect morphing attacks and output the selected text snippet as a human-understandable explanation. They evaluate ten prompts on a self-built morphing dataset (MD) sampled from FRGC V2, with five morphing generation algorithms and three capture mediums (digital, high-quality print-scan PS-1, and low-quality print-scan PS-2), and compare against pretrained ResNet50, VGG-19, and ViT in zero-shot settings. The best-performing prompt (#5) is highlighted in the summary table.

Significance. If validated, the paper would introduce a novel application of CLIP zero-shot classification to explainable morphing attack detection, with the practical appeal of requiring no task-specific training and providing a textual output for non-technical users. The paper's strengths are its systematic prompt analysis and the inclusion of multiple morphing generation algorithms and print-scan conditions. However, the central generalization claim is supported only by a single in-house dataset with post-hoc prompt selection, and the 'textual explanation' is essentially the class label chosen by the model. These issues currently limit the strength of the contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Table 1 / Fig. 18] The headline results in Table 1 are reported for prompt #5, which is selected post hoc as the best-performing prompt on the same evaluation set (Fig. 18). Selecting the prompt on the test data and then reporting its performance on that same data inflates the reported BPCER values and makes the 'generalizable' claim in the abstract and conclusion unsubstantiated. The paper should report all ten prompts on the same plot/table, or better, select the prompt on a held-out validation set and report performance on an independent test set.
  2. [Section 3.1] There is an arithmetic inconsistency in the dataset description: '2526 × 5 × 2 = 12630' is incorrect (the correct product is 25260), and the sentence describing bona fide samples, '1276 × 2 = 2552', is also ambiguous because it says 'separately for digital and morphing'. This makes the exact evaluation set unclear and harms reproducibility. Please clarify the number of bona fide and morphing images per medium and per morphing algorithm, and correct the arithmetic.
  3. [Abstract / Section 4] The claim that zero-shot CLIP yields 'generalizable morphing attack detection' is load-bearing, yet all experiments are conducted on the self-built MD dataset sampled from FRGC V2. No cross-dataset evaluation, no subject-disjoint evaluation, and no unseen morphing algorithm are presented. Because the novelty of the paper is precisely the zero-shot transfer of CLIP, the absence of any external validation means the generalization claim is currently unsupported. The authors should either add a cross-dataset experiment (e.g., on a publicly available MAD benchmark) or significantly soften the generalization claim in the abstract and conclusion.
  4. [Title / Section 1 / Section 2.2] The paper describes the method as providing a 'textual explanation' and 'predict[ing] the most relevant text snippet', but in the proposed zero-shot setup the selected text snippet is simply the argmax of the softmax over the two class prompts. This is a class label, not an explanation of the decision. No evidence is given that the returned text conveys image content beyond the category. The LIME analysis in Section 3.2 (Fig. 19) concerns the vision encoder and, as the authors state, it is challenging to determine which features contributed to the decision. To support the interpretability claim, the paper should demonstrate that the text output provides additional, non-trivial information, for example via a human study or semantic analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] Typographical errors: 'zero-short evaluation' should be 'zero-shot evaluation' in the introductory paragraph of Section 3.
  2. [Table 1] The table is labeled 'Qualitative evaluation' but reports quantitative BPCER values. It should be labeled 'Quantitative evaluation'.
  3. [Figure 19] The caption refers to 'CLIP video encoder', but CLIP has an image encoder, not a video encoder. Please correct the terminology.
  4. [References] The CLIP reference appears twice as [11] and [12] with the same citation information. Merge duplicate references.
  5. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'The image encoder consists of transformer blocks' is imprecise for the ViT variant; clarify which CLIP variant is used in the experiments and report the specific backbone (e.g., ViT-B/32).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CLIP zero-shot pipeline is self-contained; post-hoc prompt selection is a validity concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is straightforward: CLIP's pretrained image and text encoders map face images and two fixed text prompts into a shared space, and a softmax over cosine similarities yields the detection decision and the selected text snippet (Section 2.2). This is a standard zero-shot classification procedure with no fitted parameters and no quantity that reduces by definition to its input. The claimed 'prediction of the text snippet' is simply the argmax over the two class prompts, which is the operational output of the method rather than a circularly defined result. The dataset is self-built from FRGC V2 and the paper compares CLIP against ImageNet-pretrained baselines, but this affects external validity, not circularity. The selection of prompt #5 as the best-performing prompt in Figure 18 and its use in Table 1 is disclosed and post-hoc; it is a model-selection-on-test-set concern that can inflate reported BPCER, but it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction because the paper explicitly presents it as the best-performing prompt rather than as an independent forecast. Self-citations such as [29] and [30] are used for dataset protocol and ViT motivation, but they are not load-bearing for the central zero-shot mechanism, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. There is no step in which an equation equals its own input or a fitted value is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted numerical parameters; the central dependencies are the pretrained CLIP model and the hand-chosen prompt set. The selection of prompt #5 for the headline comparison is a post-hoc choice on the test set and is listed as a free parameter. All stated assumptions are domain-level; no mathematical derivation is attempted.

free parameters (1)
  • Best-performing text prompt template (Prompt #5) = Bona fide: 'It is not a morphed image.'; Morph: 'It is a morphed image.'
    Selected after evaluating all ten prompts on the test data; Table 1 reports the proposed framework's results using only this prompt, which is a post-hoc choice on the evaluation set.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CLIP's pretrained image-text embedding space ranks 'morphed image' text above 'bona fide image' text for morphed faces and the reverse for bona fide faces.
    Section 2.2: probabilities are computed from cosine distance between image and text features; no training or adaptation is performed, so the entire method depends on this property holding for fine-grained face morphing artifacts.
  • domain assumption The MD dataset, built from 143 FRGC V2 subjects and five morphing algorithms, is representative of realistic morphing attacks across digital and print-scan mediums.
    Section 3.1: all results and the generalization claim are based solely on this self-constructed dataset, with no external or cross-dataset validation.
  • domain assumption The printed and scanned images at 300 dpi preserve the morphing artifacts needed for detection.
    Section 3.1: high-quality and low-quality print-scan versions are created assuming that the print-scan process does not erase the discriminative information that CLIP relies on.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Empowering Morphing Attack Detection using Interpretable Image-Text Foundation Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P2HPGLSB

@misc{pith2026250810110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Empowering Morphing Attack Detection using Interpretable Image-Text Foundation Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P2HPGLSB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10110}
}
read the original abstract

Morphing attack detection has become an essential component of face recognition systems for ensuring a reliable verification scenario. In this paper, we present a multimodal learning approach that can provide a textual description of morphing attack detection. We first show that zero-shot evaluation of the proposed framework using Contrastive Language-Image Pretraining (CLIP) can yield not only generalizable morphing attack detection, but also predict the most relevant text snippet. We present an extensive analysis of ten different textual prompts that include both short and long textual prompts. These prompts are engineered by considering the human understandable textual snippet. Extensive experiments were performed on a face morphing dataset that was developed using a publicly available face biometric dataset. We present an evaluation of SOTA pre-trained neural networks together with the proposed framework in the zero-shot evaluation of five different morphing generation techniques that are captured in three different mediums.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Block Diagram of the proposed framework using zero-shot explainable single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of morphing samples with different mediums from MD dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The quantitative results of the S-MAD using Proposed Framework with Prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The quantitative results of the Proposed S-MAD Framework with Prompt #2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The quantitative results of the Proposed S-MAD Framework with Prompt #3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The quantitative results of the Proposed S-MAD Framework with Prompt #4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The quantitative results of the Proposed S-MAD Framework with Prompt #5. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The quantitative results of the Proposed S-MAD Framework with Prompt #6. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The quantitative results of the Proposed S-MAD Framework with Prompt #7. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The quantitative results of the Proposed S-MAD Framework with Prompt #8. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The quantitative results of the Proposed S-MAD Framework with Prompt #9. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The quantitative results of the Proposed S-MAD Framework with Prompt #10. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mean performance of different morphing generation algorithms across all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Mean performance of different morphing generation algorithms on shorter and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Mean performance of different morphing generation algorithms on shorter and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Mean performance of different morphing generation algorithms on shorter and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Mean performance of different morphing algorithms across all prompts and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Mean performance of different morphing algorithms across all three mediums [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Lime explainability on CLIP video encoder on both bona fide and morphing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    http://dnpphoto.com/en-us/Products/Printers/DS820A (2020), accessed: October 2020 5

    DNP printer. http://dnpphoto.com/en-us/Products/Printers/DS820A (2020), accessed: October 2020 5

    work page 2020

  2. [3]

    ArXiv abs/2010.11929 (2020), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:225039882 3

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., De- hghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., Uszkoreit, J., Houlsby, N.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. ArXiv abs/2010.11929 (2020), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:225039882 3

    arXiv 2010

  3. [4]

    In: Intl

    Ferrara, M., Franco, A., Maltoni, D.: Decoupling texture blending and shape warping in face morphing. In: Intl. Conf. of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG). IEEE (September 2019) 5, 6

    work page 2019

  4. [5]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/ TTS.2022.3231450 1

    Godage, S.R., Løv ˚asdal, F., Venkatesh, S., Raja, K., Ramachandra, R., Busch, C.: Analyzing human observer ability in morphing attack detection—where do we stand? IEEE Transac- tions on Technology and Society 4(2), 125–145 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/ TTS.2022.3231450 1

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [6]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016) 3

    work page 2016

  6. [7]

    https://www.learnopencv.com/ face-morph-using-opencv-cpp-python/ 5, 6

    landmark based face morphing, F.: Open CV. https://www.learnopencv.com/ face-morph-using-opencv-cpp-python/ 5, 6

    work page

  7. [8]

    https://pages.nist.gov/frvt/html/frvt_ morph.html 2

    NIST: FRVT morph web site. https://pages.nist.gov/frvt/html/frvt_ morph.html 2

    work page

  8. [9]

    http://www

    Organization, I.C.A.: Machine readable passports – part 1 – introduction. http://www. icao.int/publications/Documents/9303_p1_cons_en.pdf (2015) 5

    work page 2015

Show all 29 references
  1. [10]

    In: 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05)

    Phillips, P.J., Flynn, P.J., Scruggs, T., Bowyer, K.W., Jin Chang, Hoffman, K., Marques, J., Jaesik Min, Worek, W.: Overview of the face recognition grand challenge. In: 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05). pp. 947–954 vol...

    2005 doi

  2. [11]

    In: Meila, M., Zhang, T

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., Krueger, G., Sutskever, I.: Learning transferable visual mod- els from natural language supervision. In: Meila, M., Zhang, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 38th I...

    2021

  3. [12]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 8748–8763. PMLR (2021) 2, 3

    2021

  4. [13]

    In: 2016 IEEE 8th Intl

    Raghavendra, R., Raja, K., Busch, C.: Detecting morphed face images. In: 2016 IEEE 8th Intl. Conf. on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS). 8th IEEE Intl. Conf. on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS-2016), IEEE (September 2016) 2

    2016

  5. [14]

    In: IEEE Conf

    Raghavendra, R., Raja, K., Venkatesh, S., Busch, C.: Transferable deep-CNN features for de- tecting digital and print-scanned morphed face images. In: IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). pp. 1822–1830 (2017) 2, 13

    2017

  6. [15]

    In: Intl

    Raghavendra, R., Venkatesh, S., Raja, K., Busch, C.: Detecting face morphing attacks with collaborative representation of steerable features. In: Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision and Image Processing (CVIP) (September 2018) 2

    2018

  7. [16]

    Image and Vision Computing 126, 104535 (2022)

    Raja, K., Gupta, G., Venkatesh, S., Ramachandra, R., Busch, C.: Towards generalized morphing attack detection by learning residuals. Image and Vision Computing 126, 104535 (2022). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis. 2022.104535, https://www.sciencedirect.com/scie...

    2022

  8. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision

    Ramachandra, R., Venkatesh, S., Damer, N., Vetrekar, N.: Multispectral imaging for differ- ential face morphing attack detection: A preliminary study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. pp. 6185–6193 (2024) 1 16 Sushrut, Ragha...

    2024

  9. [19]

    In: 2023 5th International Conference on Bio- engineering for Smart Technologies (BioSMART)

    Ramachandra, R., Venkatesh, S., Li, G., Raja, K.: Differential newborn face morphing at- tack detection using wavelet scatter network. In: 2023 5th International Conference on Bio- engineering for Smart Technologies (BioSMART). pp. 1–4 (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/BioSMART...

    2023

  10. [20]

    Computers 10(9) (2021)

    Seibold, C., Hilsmann, A., Eisert, P.: Feature focus: Towards explainable and trans- parent deep face morphing attack detectors. Computers 10(9) (2021). https://doi. org/10.3390/computers10090117, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-431X/ 10/9/117 2

    2021 doi

  11. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

    Selvaraju, R.R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., Batra, D.: Grad-cam: Vi- sual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. pp. 618–626 (2017) 2

    2017

  12. [22]

    IEEE Transactions on Biometrics, Behavior, and Identity Science (2023) 1

    Singh, J.M., Ramachandra, R.: 3d face morphing attacks: Generation, vulnerability and de- tection. IEEE Transactions on Biometrics, Behavior, and Identity Science (2023) 1

    2023

  13. [23]

    In: 2023 26th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION)

    Singh, J.M., Venkatesh, S., Ramachandra, R.: Robust face morphing attack detection us- ing fusion of multiple features and classification techniques. In: 2023 26th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION). pp. 1–8 (2023). https://doi.org/10. 23919/FUSION52260.20...

    2023

  14. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Srivatsan, K., Naseer, M., Nandakumar, K.: Flip: Cross-domain face anti-spoofing with lan- guage guidance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 19685–19696 (2023) 3

    2023

  15. [25]

    In: 2023 11th International Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF)

    Tapia, J.E., Busch, C.: Face feature visualisation of single morphing attack detection. In: 2023 11th International Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF). pp. 1–6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/IWBF57495.2023.10157534 2

    2023

  16. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, L., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. p. 6000–6010. NIPS’17, Curran Associates Inc., Red...

    2017

  17. [27]

    IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society 2(3), 128–145 (March 2021)

    Venkatesh, S., Raghavendra, R., Raja, K., Busch, C.: Face morphing attack generation and detection: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society 2(3), 128–145 (March 2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2021.3066254 1, 2

    2021

  18. [28]

    In: 9th Intl

    Venkatesh, S., Raghavendra, R., Raja, K., Spreeuwers, L., Veldhuis, R., Busch, C.: Morphed face detection based on deep color residual noise. In: 9th Intl. Conf. on Image Processing Theory, Tools and Applications (IPTA). IEEE (November 2019) 13

    2019

  19. [29]

    IEEE Transactions on Biometrics, Behavior, and Identity Science 3(3), 365–383 (2021)

    Zhang, H., Venkatesh, S., Raghavendra, R., Raja, K., Damer, N., Busch, C.: MIP- GAN—Generating strong and high quality morphing attacks using identity prior driven GAN. IEEE Transactions on Biometrics, Behavior, and Identity Science 3(3), 365–383 (2021). https://doi.org/10.110...

    2021

  20. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Zhang, H., Ramachandra, R., Raja, K., Busch, C.: Generalized single-image-based morphing attack detection using deep representations from vision transformer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 1510–1518 (2024) 4, 13

    2024

  21. [31]

    In: Norsk IKT-konferanse for forskn- ing og utdanning (NISK)

    Zhang, Haoyu; Ramachandra, R.R.K.B.C.: Morph-pipe: Plugging in identity prior to en- hance face morphing attack based on diffusion model. In: Norsk IKT-konferanse for forskn- ing og utdanning (NISK). vol. 3, pp. 1–6 (2023) 5, 6

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.