Emergent Morphing Attack Detection in Open Multi-modal Large Language Models
Organizations: Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Tržaška cesta 25, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia
Abstract
Face morphing attacks threaten biometric verification, yet most morphing attack detection (MAD) systems require task-specific training and generalize poorly to unseen attack types. Meanwhile, open-source multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated strong visual-linguistic reasoning, but their potential in biometric forensics remains underexplored. In this paper, we present the first systematic zero-shot evaluation of open-source MLLMs for single-image MAD, using publicly available weights and a standardized, reproducible protocol. Across diverse morphing techniques, many MLLMs show non-trivial discriminative ability without any fine-tuning or domain adaptation, and LLaVA1.6-Mistral-7B achieves state-of-the-art performance, surpassing highly competitive task-specific MAD baselines by at least 23% in terms of equal error rate (EER). The results indicate that multimodal pretraining can implicitly encode fine-grained facial inconsistencies indicative of morphing artifacts, enabling zero-shot forensic sensitivity. Our findings position open-source MLLMs as reproducible, interpretable, and competitive foundations for biometric security and forensic image analysis. This emergent capability also highlights new opportunities to develop state-of-the-art MAD systems through targeted fine-tuning or lightweight adaptation, further improving accuracy and efficiency while preserving interpretability. To support future research, all code and evaluation protocols will be released upon publication.
Figures & tables
| Model | FRLL-Morphs | MIPGAN | MorDIFF | Morph- | Greedy- | Average | ||||||||||||||
| AMSL | FM ∗ | OCV ∗ | SG ∗ | WM ∗ | II | PIPE | DiM | |||||||||||||
| EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | |
| Small MLLMs ( 7B parameters) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| InternVL3.5-1B | ||||||||||||||||||||
| InternVL3.5-2B | ||||||||||||||||||||
| DeepSeek-VL2-Tiny | {\color[rgb]{0.1211,0.4648,0.707}\mathbf{2.94}} | {\color[rgb]{0.1211,0.4648,0.707}\mathbf{1.96}} | {\color[rgb]{0.1211,0.4648,0.707}\mathbf{0.27}} | {\color[rgb]{0.1211,0.4648,0.707}\mathbf{0.00}} | ||||||||||||||||
| Model | FRLL-Morphs | MIPGAN | MorDIFF | Morph- | Greedy- | Average | |||||||||||||||
| AMSL | FM ∗∗ | OCV ∗∗ | SG ∗∗ | WM ∗∗ | II | PIPE | DiM | ||||||||||||||
| EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | EER | 5% | ||
| U ∗ | FIQA-MagFace [ 13 ] | {\color[rgb]{1,0.4922,0.0586}\mathbf{7.53}} | {\color[rgb]{0.1211,0.4648,0.707}\mathbf{8.82}} | ||||||||||||||||||
| CNNIQA [ 13 ] | |||||||||||||||||||||
| SPL-MAD [ 12 ] | |||||||||||||||||||||
| MAD-DDPM [ 16 ] | |||||||||||||||||||||
Image Forgery Detection
Image Forgery Detection studies how to identify manipulated or synthetic images and locate the visual evidence of tampering.
See all 126 papers