4.7 Article

Triplet-Classifier GAN for Finger-Vein Verification

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIM.2022.3154834

关键词

Generative adversarial networks; Feature extraction; Veins; Fingers; Generators; Convolutional neural networks; Training; Convolutional neural network (CNN); deep learning; finger vein; generative adversarial network (GAN); metric learning

资金

  1. IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Society Graduate Fellowship Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this article, a new generative adversarial network (GAN) called the triplet-classifier GAN is designed for finger-vein verification. Unlike traditional GAN methods, this model uses generated fake data to improve the learning ability of the classifier. Experiments prove that this model has superior performance in finger-vein verification and shows promise in finger-vein-based biometric verification.
In finger-vein-based biometric verification, it is essential to robustly extract vein features with strong discrimination ability. Recently, deep learning methods have achieved remarkable performance in the field of finger-vein verification. However, the establishment of an effective deep learning model requires large-scale databases to prevent overfitting during the training process, while currently used finger-vein databases are not large enough. In our article, a new generative adversarial network (GAN), named triplet-classifier GAN, is designed for finger-vein verification. Unlike the traditional GAN-based method, the proposed triplet-classifier GAN uses the generated fake data to improve the learning ability of the triplet loss-based convolutional neural network (CNN) classifier. The combination of GAN and the triplet loss-based CNN classifier expands the training data and improves the discriminant ability of CNN. Experiments prove that the proposed triplet-classifier GAN has superior performance in finger-vein verification and has good prospects in finger-vein-based biometric verification.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据