AI More Accurate Than People at Identifying Biometric Spoofs, New Study Shows
The latest research by ID R&D reveals that computers outperform humans in detecting biometric spoofing attacks, such as photos and videos. The AI systems achieved a 0% error rate across 175,000 images, while humans misidentified 30% of printed images. Machines were nearly 10 times faster, taking less than 0.5 seconds per image compared to 4.8 seconds for humans. The study emphasizes the effectiveness of AI-based facial liveness detection in identity verification, significantly reducing false positives for genuine users to just 1%.
- Machines achieved a 0% error rate on 175,000 images in detecting spoofing.
- AI systems were nearly 10 times faster, processing images in under 0.5 seconds.
- Only 1% of genuine faces were misclassified as spoofs by AI, compared to 18% for humans.
- None.
Machines also 10X faster at detecting fake faces, important to curb online ID fraud
The new research report, Human or Machine: AI Proves Best at Spotting Biometric Attacks, finds that computers are more adept than people at accurately and quickly determining whether a photo is of an actual, live person versus a presentation attack. Fraudsters attempt to imitate real customers during processes such as creating a new bank account or logging into an existing account. Liveness detection instantly validates whether a photo, taken in real time, is of a live person.
The study tested humans and machines by presenting them with the most common spoofing techniques: printed photos, videos, digital images, and 2D or 3D masks.
Machines outperformed humans for all types of face biometric spoofing
Computers were more accurate than humans in tests of all five types of images, scoring
Computers were also almost 10 times quicker to recognize a photo of a live person or a spoof. On average, it took humans 4.8 seconds per image to determine liveness, whereas computers running on a single CPU took less than 0.5 seconds per image to determine liveness. These latest technology advances support the rapid rise in facial recognition for identity verification and authentication.
This performance is strong evidence for organizations in financial services and other industries staking trust in automation. The ability to use AI facial liveness technology to detect fraud saves time and enables human resources to focus on more complex fraud.
Technology ensures the most frictionless customer experience
Despite the strong performance of computers at spotting spoofs, fraud detection must not compromise the experience of genuine customers. Many facial liveness systems on the market are good at keeping fraudsters out, but in the process, a significant number of genuine people are also caught in the net.
However, in this study, the AI system erroneously classified just
“The results are undeniable,” said
Notes to Editors
The new research report, titled Human or Machine: AI Proves Best at Spotting Biometric Attacks is available now.
About ID R&D
ID R&D, a Mitek company, is an award-winning provider of AI-based voice and face biometrics and liveness detection. With one of the strongest R&D teams in the industry, ID R&D consistently delivers innovative, best-in-class biometric capabilities that raise the bar in terms of usability and performance. Our proven products have achieved superior results in industry-leading challenges, third-party testing, and real-world deployments in more than 50 countries. ID R&D’s solutions are available for easy integration with mobile, web, messaging, and telephone channels, as well as in smart speakers, set-top boxes, and other IoT devices. ID R&D is based in
About Mitek
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220209005062/en/
Corporate Communications Director
pr@miteksystems.com
LEWIS for Mitek
MitekUK@teamlewis.com
Source: ID R&D
FAQ
What does the new ID R&D research reveal about biometric spoofing detection?
How much faster are machines at detecting liveness compared to humans?
What is the false positive rate for AI in detecting genuine faces?
What are the implications of this research for identity verification systems?