Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Metric for Evaluating Performance of Reference-Free Demorphing Methods

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a new metric, biometrically cross-weighted IQA, that scores reference-free face demorphing by multiplying face-matcher similarity with image quality and selecting the correct output pairing.

desk verdict Correctly identifies a real evaluation gap in face demorphing, but the proposed metric does not penalize the trivial solution it claims to fix, and the benchmark protocol is murky. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12319 v1 pith:XPJAKWXB submitted 2025-01-21 cs.CV

Nitish Shukla , Arun Ross This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords facemorphingreference-freedemorphingevaluationmetricbiometricsimilarityimagequalityassessmenttruematchratemorphreplicationrecognition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Reference-free face demorphing tries to recover the two constituent face images from a single morphed image, but the field has no agreed way to score the recovered images. This paper argues that the two metric families currently used are both broken for this task: biometric rates such as True Match Rate and Restoration Accuracy give a perfect score to a trivial demorpher that simply returns the morph unchanged, while pixel-space SSIM and PSNR ignore identity altogether. To replace them, the paper introduces biometrically cross-weighted IQA, which multiplies each candidate output's image quality score by its face-matcher similarity to the ground-truth constituents and takes the best pairing. The paper benchmarks three demorphing methods on six datasets with two face matchers and reports that the new metric ranks Identity Preserving Decomposition first, a ranking that agrees with visual inspection of the outputs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the biometrically cross-weighted IQA score defined in Equation (9) of the paper. Given a morph $x$, outputs $o_1, o_2$, and ground truths $i_1, i_2$, the metric computes biometric similarity $B(o,i)$ with a face matcher and image quality $\text{iqa}(o,i)$ with an IQA function such as SSIM or PSNR, multiplies the two per candidate pair, and takes the maximum over the two possible bijections between outputs and ground truths. The max operation is what handles the fact that demorpher outputs are unordered, and the multiplicative weighting is what forces a high score to require both identity preservation and image fidelity.

What would settle it

Run a demorpher that outputs the same constituent image twice, say $o_1 = o_2 = i_1$, evaluate BW(SSIM) with any face matcher, and check whether its score is comparable to the genuine demorphers reported in Table 2; if it is, the metric does not penalize trivial outputs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a demorphing metric should be a product of two factors: the biometric match score between a demorphed output and a ground-truth constituent image, and the image quality of that same output measured by an IQA function. For unordered outputs, the metric computes both possible output-to-ground-truth pairings and keeps the larger weighted sum, then averages over all morphs. This single formula, $\text{BW}(\text{iqa}) = \mathbb{E}_{x \in X} \max\left(\sum_{i\in\{1,2\}} B(o_i,i_i)\cdot\text{iqa}(o_i,i_i), \sum_{i\in\{1,2\}, j=i\%2+1} B(o_i,i_j)\cdot\text{iqa}(o_i,i_j)\right)$, is claimed to overcome the morph-replication loophole that makes TMR and RA uninformative and to correct the identity blindness of SSIM and PSNR. The paper's experiments support this by showing that a trivial demorpher reaches 100% TMR while the proposed metric separates the three methods in a way consistent with visual quality.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that multiplying biometric match scores by image-quality scores makes the trivial demorpher score poorly, but the formula contains no term requiring the two outputs to be distinct, so a demorpher that returns the same image twice could still receive a high score.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the metric is adopted, demorphing papers will need to report a single number that can be compared across methods, datasets, and face matchers.
  • TMR and RA should be dropped as primary evidence, because a trivial demorpher that regurgitates the morph achieves a perfect score by construction.
  • Methods trained under different assumptions can be ranked under a common protocol using the same score, as the paper does for three open-source demorphing methods.
  • The metric extends straightforwardly to any face matcher and any IQA measure, so future demorphing methods can be tuned directly against it.
  • The benchmark result, with Identity Preserving Decomposition scoring highest on BW, gives a concrete reference point for subsequent work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the metric inherits the blind spots of both components; if the face matcher cannot distinguish two identities, the biometric weight will not penalize identity confusion, and if the IQA is insensitive to artifacts, a distorted output can still score well.
  • Editorial inference: the definition of BW(iqa) contains no term enforcing the paper's own Equation (3), the requirement that the two outputs $o_1$ and $o_2$ be dissimilar, so a demorpher that returns the same image for both outputs could still score high if that image matches one ground truth.
  • Editorial inference: the Table 2 benchmark numbers are described as supplied by the original authors rather than recomputed under the paper's common protocol, so the reported ranking of methods under the new metric may partly reflect the original papers' own training conditions.
  • Editorial inference: a natural testable extension is to add the distinctness penalty $B(o_1,o_2)<\theta$ directly into the metric, or to generalize the formula to morphs created from more than two identities by summing over all possible output-to-identity assignments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses evaluation of reference-free face demorphing. It argues that existing metrics are flawed: TMR and RA can be gamed by trivial morph replication, while SSIM/PSNR ignore identity information. It proposes a new metric, biometrically cross-weighted IQA (BW), defined in Eq. (9), which multiplies biometric similarity scores with IQA values over possible pairings of outputs and ground truths. The authors benchmark three demorphing methods on six datasets with AdaFace and ArcFace, reporting TMR, RA, PSNR/SSIM, and BW scores, and conclude that BW better reflects visual quality.

Significance. The paper identifies a real problem: reference-free demorphing evaluation lacks a consensus metric, and Table 3 convincingly shows that a trivial solution achieves perfect TMR on all six datasets. If a metric truly penalized morph replication while combining biometric and image-quality information, it would be a useful contribution. The paper also usefully demonstrates that SSIM/PSNR can rank distorted outputs incorrectly. However, the proposed BW metric does not contain any explicit mechanism to penalize the trivial solution, and the experimental protocol is internally inconsistent as reported. As a result, the central claim is not supported by the presented evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (9); §1 contribution 2] The paper claims that BW 'penalizes trivial demorphing outputs,' but Eq. (9) contains no term involving B(o1,o2) and does not enforce the distinctness condition in Eq. (3). If a method outputs o1=o2=x, the two sums inside max(·) become identical, and BW reduces to E_x[ B(x,i1)·iqa(x,i1)+B(x,i2)·iqa(x,i2) ]. Since a morph is constructed so that B(x,ik)>τ, these products can be substantial. The paper never reports the BW score of this trivial solution in Table 2 or elsewhere, so the central claim is neither guaranteed by construction nor verified empirically.
  2. [§5 vs. Table 2 caption] Section 5 says the methods are trained under a common protocol, but Table 2 states that the scores are 'supplied by the original authors.' If the three methods were evaluated under their originally published training protocols (scenarios 1 and 3 as described in §2), the columns are not comparable; if they were re-trained under the common protocol, the scores cannot be supplied by the original authors. Either way, the cross-method comparison that underpins the efficacy claims for BW is not supported by the reported numbers.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (7)] The max over the two possible pairings in Eq. (7) and Eq. (9) means that one well-reconstructed output and one poor output can receive a score similar to two moderately reconstructed outputs. This is inconsistent with the problem statement in Eq. (4), which requires both outputs to align with their corresponding ground-truth images. Thus BW can be inflated by partially successful decompositions, and it does not measure whether the demorpher satisfies the two-output recovery condition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2 header] The header column labeled 'Facial Demorphing [33]' refers to [1] in the text; [33] is SDeMorph, so the citation is inconsistent.
  2. [§5, last sentence] The sentence 'Note that the test morphs include those generated using includes both conventional landmark-based techniques...' contains a typo: 'using includes' should be 'using both' or similar.
  3. [Table 3 caption] The caption says TMR is 'averaged over two subjects,' but the text in §7 indicates averaging over two face matchers; please clarify which quantity is averaged.
  4. [§4.1] The impostor score computation described in the Evaluation Criterion paragraph is not used in Eq. (7), Eq. (8), or Eq. (9); either it should be removed or its role in the proposed metric should be explained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proposed BW metric is an explicit combination of external biometric and IQA components, not fitted to data or derived from a self-citation chain.

full rationale

BW(iqa) in Eq. (9) is defined as the expectation over morphs of the max of two sums, each term being a product of a face-matcher similarity B(o_i, i_k) and an IQA score iqa(o_i, i_k). It is an evaluation formula composed from independently existing components (AdaFace/ArcFace, SSIM/PSNR); no parameter is fitted to the benchmark data and no value is chosen to reproduce a target ranking. The paper's criticism of TMR/RA and SSIM/PSNR is conceptual, and the proposed metric explicitly announces itself as a weighted combination of those two families, so its balancing behavior is built into the definition rather than being a derived prediction equivalent to an input. The authors' prior works ([1], [33], [35], [34]) are cited as benchmarked methods and background, not as the basis for the metric's correctness; the Table 2 note that scores were supplied by the original authors is an independence and reproducibility caveat, not a circular reduction. The known weakness that Eq. (9) has no B(o1,o2) distinctness term and therefore may fail to penalize a trivial solution is a substantive correctness concern, but it is not circularity: the metric does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The derivation chain is self-contained, proceeding from the proposed metric to evaluation on existing methods and comparison with existing metrics, with no fitted parameters or imported uniqueness claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The metric introduces no new physical or conceptual entities. It depends on the domain assumptions that biometric matcher scores and IQA values are complementary and can be combined multiplicatively, and that the max-pairing heuristic is unbiased for degenerate outputs.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Biometric similarity scores from AdaFace and ArcFace are valid measures of identity match for demorphed images.
    The proposed metric multiplies these similarity scores into the evaluation without questioning their reliability on reconstructed images (Section 7).
  • domain assumption The product of biometric similarity and IQA provides a meaningful scalar for ranking demorphing quality.
    This is the core assumption of the metric design in Section 4.2, but the paper does not validate that higher products correspond to better demorphing.
  • domain assumption The max over the two pairings correctly resolves the unordered output problem.
    Used in Equation (9) to select the best pairing; assumed to be sufficient without considering that degenerate outputs (e.g., identical outputs) could bias the result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Metric for Evaluating Performance of Reference-Free Demorphing Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XPJAKWXB

@misc{pith2026250112319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Metric for Evaluating Performance of Reference-Free Demorphing Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XPJAKWXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12319}
}
read the original abstract

A facial morph is an image created by combining two (or more) face images pertaining to two (or more) distinct identities. Reference-free face demorphing inverts the process and tries to recover the face images constituting a facial morph without using any other information. However, there is no consensus on the evaluation metrics to be used to evaluate and compare such demorphing techniques. In this paper, we first analyze the shortcomings of the demorphing metrics currently used in the literature. We then propose a new metric called biometrically cross-weighted IQA that overcomes these issues and extensively benchmark current methods on the proposed metric to show its efficacy. Experiments on three existing demorphing methods and six datasets on two commonly used face matchers validate the efficacy of our proposed metric.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12319 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Single-image reference-free demorphing: The MORPH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the efficacy of SSIM and PSNR with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Facial De-morphing: Extracting Component Faces from a Single Morph

    Sudipta Banerjee, Prateek Jaiswal, and Arun Ross. Facial De-morphing: Extracting Component Faces from a Single Morph. In Proceedings of IEEE International Joint Confer- ence on Biometrics, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Realistic Dreams: Cascaded Enhancement of GAN-generated Images with an Example in Face Morphing Attacks

    Naser Damer, Fadi Boutros, Alexandra Mosegu ´ı Saladi ´e, Florian Kirchbuchner, and Arjan Kuijper. Realistic Dreams: Cascaded Enhancement of GAN-generated Images with an Example in Face Morphing Attacks. In Proceedings of IEEE 10th International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Appli- cations and Systems (BTAS), pages 1–10, 2019. 1

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    MorDIFF: Recognition Vulnerability and Attack Detectability of Face Morphing At- tacks Created by Diffusion Autoencoders

    Naser Damer, Meiling Fang, Patrick Siebke, Jan Niklas Kolf, Marco Huber, and Fadi Boutros. MorDIFF: Recognition Vulnerability and Attack Detectability of Face Morphing At- tacks Created by Diffusion Autoencoders. In Proceedings of 11th International Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF), pages 1–6, 2023. 1, 5

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Privacy-Friendly Synthetic Data for the Development of Face Morphing Attack Detectors

    Naser Damer, C ´esar Augusto Fontanillo L ´opez, Meiling Fang, No ´emie Spiller, Minh Vu Pham, and Fadi Boutros. Privacy-Friendly Synthetic Data for the Development of Face Morphing Attack Detectors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops , pages 1606–1617, June

    work page

  5. [5]

    ReGen- Morph: Visibly Realistic GAN Generated Face Morphing Attacks by Attack Re-generation

    Naser Damer, Kiran Raja, Marius S ¨ußmilch, Sushma Venkatesh, Fadi Boutros, Meiling Fang, Florian Kirchbuch- ner, Raghavendra Ramachandra, and Arjan Kuijper. ReGen- Morph: Visibly Realistic GAN Generated Face Morphing Attacks by Attack Re-generation. In Proceedings of Ad- vances in Visual Computing, pages 251–264, 2021. 1

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    MorGAN: Recognition Vulnerability and Attack Detectability of Face Morphing Attacks Created by Generative Adversarial Network

    Naser Damer, Alexandra Mosegu ´ı Saladi ´e, Andreas Braun, and Arjan Kuijper. MorGAN: Recognition Vulnerability and Attack Detectability of Face Morphing Attacks Created by Generative Adversarial Network. In Proceedings of 2018 IEEE 9th International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), pages 1–10, 2018. 4

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    debruine/webmorph morphing software: Beta release 2, January 2018

    Lisa DeBruine. debruine/webmorph morphing software: Beta release 2, January 2018. URL: https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.1162670. 5

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.1162670 2018

  8. [8]

    Face Research Lab London (FRLL) Image Dataset

    Lisa DeBruine and Benedict Jones. Face Research Lab London (FRLL) Image Dataset. May 2017. URL: https : / / figshare . com / articles / dataset / Face_Research_Lab_London_Set/5047666/3. 5

    arXiv 2017

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Arcface: Additive Angular Margin Loss for Deep Face Recognition

    Jiankang Deng, Jia Guo, Niannan Xue, and Stefanos Zafeiriou. Arcface: Additive Angular Margin Loss for Deep Face Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4690–4699, 2019. 5

    2019

  2. [10]

    Face Demorphing

    Matteo Ferrara, Annalisa Franco, and Davide Maltoni. Face Demorphing. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 13(4):1008–1017, 2018. 1

    2018

  3. [11]

    De- coupling Texture Blending and Shape Warping in Face Mor- phing

    Matteo Ferrara, Annalisa Franco, and Davide Maltoni. De- coupling Texture Blending and Shape Warping in Face Mor- phing. In Proceedings of International Conference of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG) , pages 1–5,

  4. [12]

    Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio

    Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative Adversarial Nets. In Proceed- ings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2014. 1

    2014

  5. [13]

    LADIMO: Face Morph Generation through Biometric Template Inversion with Latent Diffusion

    Marcel Grimmer and Christoph Busch. LADIMO: Face Morph Generation through Biometric Template Inversion with Latent Diffusion. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Biometrics, 2024. 1

    2024

  6. [14]

    Denoising Dif- fusion Probabilistic Models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising Dif- fusion Probabilistic Models. In Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages 6840–6851, 2020. 1

    2020

  7. [15]

    Face Morphing Attack Detection with Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models

    Marija Ivanovska and Vitomir ˇStruc. Face Morphing Attack Detection with Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2023. 1

    2023

  8. [16]

    Analyzing and Improv- ing the Image Quality of StyleGAN

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyzing and Improv- ing the Image Quality of StyleGAN. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020. 5

    2020

  9. [17]

    Adaface: Quality Adaptive Margin for Face Recognition

    Minchul Kim, Anil K Jain, and Xiaoming Liu. Adaface: Quality Adaptive Margin for Face Recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 5

    2022

  10. [18]

    Davis E. King. Dlib-ml: A Machine Learning Toolkit. vol- ume 10, page 1755–1758. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, December 2009. 5

    2009

  11. [19]

    Face morph using opencv — c++ / python

    Satya Mallick. Face morph using opencv — c++ / python. LearnOpenCV, 2016. URL: https://learnopencv. com/face-morph-using-opencv-cpp-python/ . 5

    2016

  12. [20]

    Laws against morphing

    Matthias Monroy. Laws against morphing. Security Archi- tectures and the Police Collaboration in the EU 10/01/2020,

    2020

  13. [21]

    Extended StirTrace Benchmarking of Biometric and Forensic Qualities of Mor- phed Face Images

    Tom Neubert, Andrey Makrushin, Mario Hildebrandt, Chris- tian Kraetzer, and Jana Dittmann. Extended StirTrace Benchmarking of Biometric and Forensic Qualities of Mor- phed Face Images. IET Biometrics, 7:325–332, 2018. 5

    2018

  14. [22]

    Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) Part 4: MORPH - Performance of Automated Face Morph Detection

    Mei Ngan, Patrick Grother, Kayee Hanaoka, and Jason Kuo. Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) Part 4: MORPH - Performance of Automated Face Morph Detection. NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2020-03-06

    2020

  15. [23]

    Face Morpher

    A Quek. Face Morpher. URL: https://github.com/ alyssaq/facemorpher. 5

  16. [24]

    Raghavendra, Kiran B

    R. Raghavendra, Kiran B. Raja, and Christoph Busch. De- tecting Morphed Face Images. In Proceedings of IEEE 8th International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Appli- cations and Systems (BTAS) , page 1–7. IEEE Press, 2016. 1

    2016

  17. [25]

    Raghavendra, Kiran B

    R. Raghavendra, Kiran B. Raja, Sushma Venkatesh, and Christoph Busch. Transferable Deep-CNN Features for De- tecting Digital and Print-Scanned Morphed Face Images. In Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 1822– ...

    2017

  18. [26]

    Bommanna Raja, Matteo Ferrara, Annalisa Franco, Luuk J

    K. Bommanna Raja, Matteo Ferrara, Annalisa Franco, Luuk J. Spreeuwers, Ilias Batskos, Florens de Wit, Marta Gomez-Barrero, Ulrich Scherhag, Daniel Fischer, Sushma Krupa Venkatesh, Jag Mohan Singh, Guoqiang Li, Lo¨ıc Bergeron, Sergey Isadskiy, Raghavendra Ramachandra, Christian...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Towards making Morphing Attack Detection Robust using Hybrid Scale-Space Colour Texture Features

    Raghavendra Ramachandra, Sushma Venkatesh, Kiran Raja, and Christoph Busch. Towards making Morphing Attack Detection Robust using Hybrid Scale-Space Colour Texture Features. In Proceedings of International Conference on Identity, Security, and Behavior Analysis (ISBA), pages 1–8,

  20. [28]

    Vulnerability Analysis of Face Morphing Attacks from Landmarks and Generative Adversarial Net- works

    Eklavya Sarkar, Pavel Korshunov, Laurent Colbois, and S´ebastien Marcel. Vulnerability Analysis of Face Morphing Attacks from Landmarks and Generative Adversarial Net- works. In arXiv, 2020. arXiv:2012.05344. 4

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Neural Implicit Morphing of Face Images

    Guilherme Schardong, Tiago Novello, Hallison Paz, Iurii Medvedev, Vin ´ıcius da Silva, Luiz Velho, and Nuno Gonc ¸alves. Neural Implicit Morphing of Face Images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 7321–7330, Ju...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Detecting Morphed Face Images Us- ing Facial Landmarks

    Ulrich Scherhag, Dhanesh Budhrani, Marta Gomez-Barrero, and Christoph Busch. Detecting Morphed Face Images Us- ing Facial Landmarks. In Proceedings of Image and Signal Processing, 2018. 1

    2018

  23. [31]

    Towards Detection of Morphed Face Images in Electronic Travel Documents

    Ulrich Scherhag, Christian Rathgeb, and Christoph Busch. Towards Detection of Morphed Face Images in Electronic Travel Documents. In Proceedings of IAPR International Workshop on Document Analysis Systems (DAS), pages 187– 192, 2018. 1

    2018

  24. [32]

    Deep Face Representations for Differential Morphing Attack Detection

    Ulrich Scherhag, Christian Rathgeb, Johannes Merkle, and Christoph Busch. Deep Face Representations for Differential Morphing Attack Detection. Proceedings of IEEE Transac- tions on Information Forensics and Security, 15:3625–3639,

  25. [33]

    SDeMorph: Towards Better Facial De- morphing from Single Morph

    Nitish Shukla. SDeMorph: Towards Better Facial De- morphing from Single Morph. In Proceedings of IEEE In- ternational Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB) . IEEE,

  26. [34]

    dc-GAN: Dual-Conditioned GAN for Face Demorphing From a Single Morph

    Nitish Shukla and Arun Ross. dc-GAN: Dual-Conditioned GAN for Face Demorphing From a Single Morph. In arXiv,

  27. [35]

    Facial Demorphing via Iden- tity Preserving Image Decomposition

    Nitish Shukla and Arun Ross. Facial Demorphing via Iden- tity Preserving Image Decomposition. Proceedings of IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB) , 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

    2024

  28. [36]

    Face Morphing Attack Generation and Detection: A Comprehensive Survey

    Sushma Venkatesh, Raghavendra Ramachandra, Kiran Raja, and Christoph Busch. Face Morphing Attack Generation and Detection: A Comprehensive Survey. Proceedings of IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society , 2(3):128– 145, 2021. 1

    2021

  29. [37]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Z. Li, and Y . Qiao. Joint Face Detection and Alignment Using Multitask Cascaded Convolutional Networks. IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 23(10):1499– 1503, 2016. 5

    2016

  30. [38]

    Deep Adversarial Decomposition: A Unified Framework for Separating Superimposed Images

    Zhengxia Zou, Sen Lei, Tianyang Shi, Zhenwei Shi, and Jieping Ye. Deep Adversarial Decomposition: A Unified Framework for Separating Superimposed Images . In Pro- ceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12803–12813, 2020. 3

    2020

  31. [2024]

    arXiv:2411.14494. 2, 3

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.