Alejandro Javier García

Luis F. Gomez, Julian Fierrez, Aythami Morales et al.

Presentation Attack Detection (PAD) is a crucial stage in facial recognition systems to avoid leakage of personal information or spoofing of identity to entities. Recently, pulse detection based on remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) has been shown to be effective in face presentation attack detection. This work presents three different approaches to the presentation attack detection based on rPPG: (i) The physiological domain, a domain using rPPG-based models, (ii) the Deepfakes domain, a domain where models were retrained from the physiological domain to specific Deepfakes detection tasks; and (iii) a new Presentation Attack domain was trained by applying transfer learning from the two previous domains to improve the capability to differentiate between bona-fides and attacks. The results show the efficiency of the rPPG-based models for presentation attack detection, evidencing a 21.70% decrease in average classification error rate (ACER) (from 41.03% to 19.32%) when the presentation attack domain is compared to the physiological and Deepfakes domains. Our experiments highlight the efficiency of transfer learning in rPPG-based models and perform well in presentation attack detection in instruments that do not allow copying of this physiological feature.

Alejandro J. Garcia, Henry Prakken, Guillermo R. Simari

This paper formally compares some central notions from two well-known formalisms for rule-based argumentation, DeLP and ASPIC+. The comparisons especially focus on intuitive adequacy and inter-translatability, consistency, and closure properties. As for differences in the definitions of arguments and attack, it turns out that DeLP's definitions are intuitively appealing but that they may not fully comply with Caminada and Amgoud's rationality postulates of strict closure and indirect consistency. For some special cases, the DeLP definitions are shown to fare better than ASPIC+. Next, it is argued that there are reasons to consider a variant of DeLP with grounded semantics, since in some examples its current notion of warrant arguably has counterintuitive consequences and may lead to sets of warranted arguments that are not admissible. Finally, under some minimality and consistency assumptions on ASPIC+ arguments, a one-to-many correspondence between ASPIC+ arguments and DeLP arguments is identified in such a way that if the DeLP warranting procedure is changed to grounded semantics, then DeLP notion of warrant and ASPIC+'s notion of justification are equivalent. This result is proven for three alternative definitions of attack.