Paper detail

Analyzing Human Observer Ability in Morphing Attack Detection -- Where Do We Stand?

Few studies have focused on examining how people recognize morphing attacks, even as several publications have examined the susceptibility of automated FRS and offered morphing attack detection (MAD) approaches. MAD approaches base their decisions either on a single image with no reference to compare against (S-MAD) or using a reference image (D-MAD). One prevalent misconception is that an examiner's or observer's capacity for facial morph detection depends on their subject expertise, experience, and familiarity with the issue and that no works have reported the specific results of observers who regularly verify identity (ID) documents for their jobs. As human observers are involved in checking the ID documents having facial images, a lapse in their competence can have significant societal challenges. To assess the observers' proficiency, this work first builds a new benchmark database of realistic morphing attacks from 48 different subjects, resulting in 400 morphed images. We also capture images from Automated Border Control (ABC) gates to mimic the realistic border-crossing scenarios in the D-MAD setting with 400 probe images to study the ability of human observers to detect morphed images. A new dataset of 180 morphing images is also produced to research human capacity in the S-MAD environment. In addition to creating a new evaluation platform to conduct S-MAD and D-MAD analysis, the study employs 469 observers for D-MAD and 410 observers for S-MAD who are primarily governmental employees from more than 40 countries, along with 103 subjects who are not examiners. The analysis offers intriguing insights and highlights the lack of expertise and failure to recognize a sizable number of morphing attacks by experts. The results of this study are intended to aid in the development of training programs to prevent security failures while determining whether an image is bona fide or altered.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.