Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Gehang Huang

dblp:344/3843 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Biometric security · 87% Digital forensics and information hiding · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Biometric security
fingerprint recognition
0.812024
A Latent Fingerprint in the Wild Database · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2024
Biometric security › fingerprint recognition
latent fingerprint recognition
0.812024
A Latent Fingerprint in the Wild Database · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2024
Digital forensics and information hiding › digital forensics
forensic analysis
0.212024
A Latent Fingerprint in the Wild Database · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

dataset construction · 0.8benchmarking · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 A Latent Fingerprint in the Wild Database
abstract
Latent fingerprints are among the most important and widely used evidence in crime scenes, digital forensics and law enforcement worldwide. Despite the number of advancements reported in recent works, we note that significant open issues such as independent benchmarking and lack of large-scale evaluation databases for improving the algorithms are inadequately addressed. The available databases are mostly of semi-public nature, lack of acquisition in the wild environment, and post-processing pipelines. Moreover, they do not represent a realistic capture scenario similar to real crime scenes, to benchmark the robustness of the algorithms. Further, existing databases for latent fingerprint recognition do not have a large number of unique subjects/fingerprint instances or do not provide ground truth/reference fingerprint images to conduct a cross-comparison against the latent. In this paper, we introduce a new wild large-scale latent fingerprint database that includes five different acquisition scenarios: reference fingerprints from (1) optical and (2) capacitive sensors, (3) smartphone fingerprints, latent fingerprints captured from (4) wall surface, (5) Ipad surface, and (6) aluminium foil surface. The new database consists of 1,318 unique fingerprint instances captured in all above mentioned settings. A total of 2,636 reference fingerprints from optical and capacitive sensors, 1,318 fingerphotos from smartphones, and 9,224 latent fingerprints from each of the 132 subjects were provided in this work. The dataset is constructed considering various age groups, equal representations of genders and backgrounds. In addition, we provide an extensive set of analysis of various subset evaluations to highlight open challenges for future directions in latent fingerprint recognition research.
Xinwei Liu 0001, Kiran B. Raja, Renfang Wang, Hong Qiu, Hucheng Wu, Dechao Sun, Qiguang Zheng, Gehang Huang, Ramachandra Raghavendra, Christoph Busch 0001
IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur.10