Block Induced Signature Generative Adversarial Network (BISGAN): Signature Spoofing Using GANs and Their Evaluation

Deep learning is actively being used in biometrics to develop efficient identification and verification systems. Handwritten signatures are a common subset of biometric data for authentication purposes. Generative adversarial networks (GANs) learn from original and forged signatures to generate forged signatures. While most GAN techniques create a strong signature verifier, which is the discriminator, there is a need to focus more on the quality of forgeries generated by the generator model. This work focuses on creating a generator that produces forged samples that achieve a benchmark in spoofing signature verification systems. We use CycleGANs infused with Inception model-like blocks with attention heads as the generator and a variation of the SigCNN model as the base Discriminator. We train our model with a new technique that results in 80% to 100% success in signature spoofing. Additionally, we create a custom evaluation technique to act as a goodness measure of the generated forgeries. Our work advocates generator-focused GAN architectures for spoofing data quality that aid in a better understanding of biometric data generation and evaluation.

Do humans and Convolutional Neural Networks attend to similar areas during scene classification: Effects of task and image type

Deep Learning models like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) are powerful image classifiers, but what factors determine whether they attend to similar image areas as humans do? While previous studies have focused on technological factors, little is known about the role of factors that affect human attention. In the present study, we investigated how the tasks used to elicit human attention maps interact with image characteristics in modulating the similarity between humans and CNN. We varied the intentionality of human tasks, ranging from spontaneous gaze during categorization over intentional gaze-pointing up to manual area selection. Moreover, we varied the type of image to be categorized, using either singular, salient objects, indoor scenes consisting of object arrangements, or landscapes without distinct objects defining the category. The human attention maps generated in this way were compared to the CNN attention maps revealed by explainable artificial intelligence (Grad-CAM). The influence of human tasks strongly depended on image type: For objects, human manual selection produced maps that were most similar to CNN, while the specific eye movement task has little impact. For indoor scenes, spontaneous gaze produced the least similarity, while for landscapes, similarity was equally low across all human tasks. To better understand these results, we also compared the different human attention maps to each other. Our results highlight the importance of taking human factors into account when comparing the attention of humans and CNN.