IDIDSentinel
Menu
Research24 HoursExperimentsArchitectureMethodologyFailuresDemoAbout
GitHub ↗

Research overview

A controlled study of complementary visual evidence.

Can explicit texture or edge representations improve presentation-attack detection over a semantic ConvNeXt baseline?

QUESTION

Threat model

The study classifies bona fide identity-document captures, printed reproductions, and documents recaptured from a screen. It does not evaluate identity matching, liveness guarantees, or fraud prevention in production.

PROTOCOL

Dataset decision

A proposed DLC-2021 + SIDTD four-class benchmark was rejected as the primary protocol because dataset source could deterministically reveal the composite class. Protocol A-Reduced instead uses 300 DLC-2021 samples balanced across three genuine classes.

Observed outcomes

Texture produced the highest observed test Macro-F1, driven primarily by PRINT performance. Edge improved over the semantic baseline overall, while SCREEN F1 fell in that configuration.

BONA_FIDE

M30.414
M40.480
M50.480

PRINT

M30.690
M40.889
M50.846

SCREEN

M30.667
M40.667
M50.595

Evaluation discipline

Group-safe

All derivatives of one base document stayed in one split.

Validation-only selection

Early stopping and checkpoint selection used validation Macro-F1.

Frozen test

The 44-sample test set was evaluated once after selection.

Interpretation

These are descriptive results from a reduced protocol and one primary seed. M4 and M5 also use projections and a deeper classifier than M3, so comparisons are not perfectly head-matched causal ablations.