Organizations: Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, 06974, Korea · Team of Image Vision, Naver Cloud, Seongnam, 13561, Korea · Department of Human-centric AI, Nota AI, Seoul, 06164, Korea · Department of Computer Engineering, Hanbat National University, Daejeon, 34158, Korea · Department of Imaging Science, GSAIM, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, 06974, Korea
Face Anti-Spoofing (FAS) algorithms, designed to secure face recognition systems against spoofing, struggle with limited dataset diversity, impairing their ability to handle unseen visual domains and spoofing methods. We introduce the Pattern Conversion Generative Adversarial Network (PCGAN) to enhance domain generalization in FAS. PCGAN effectively disentangles latent vectors for spoof artifacts and facial features, allowing to generate images with diverse artifacts. We further incorporate patch-based and multi-task learning to tackle partial attacks and overfitting issues to facial features. Our extensive experiments validate PCGAN's effectiveness in domain generalization and detecting partial attacks, giving a substantial improvement in facial recognition security.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overall framework. (a) shows the disentanglement and conversion of artifact patterns by combining spatial content features and artifact representations from different images. (b) PCGAN-based data augmentation and construction of patched datasets for training. (c) Patch-based Multi-tasking Network (PMN), which jointly learns from patched and full face-cropped images.
Prompt No.
Liveness Face Prompts
Attack Face Prompts
No.1
This is an example of a real face
This is an example of a spoof face
No.2
This is a bonafide face
This is an example of an attack face
No.3
This is a real face
This is not a real face
No.4
This is how a real face looks like
This is how a spoof face looks like
No.5
a photo of a real face
a photo of a spoof face
No.6
This is not a spoof face
a printout shown to be a spoof face
Table 1: Text Prompt Templates for Live and Attack Faces.
Method
OCI → M
OMI → C
OCM → I
ICM → O
Average
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
MA-Net [ 42 ]
20.80
-
25.60
-
24.70
-
26.30
-
24.35
-
SSAN-R [ 18 ]
6.67
98.75
10.00
96.67
8.88
96.79
13.72
93.63
9.82
96.46
AFD [ 12 ]
12.92
93.29
17.78
88.10
18.75
91.92
15.90
90.54
16.34
90.96
PatchNet [ 27 ]
7.10
98.46
11.33
94.58
13.40
95.67
11.82
95.07
10.90
95.95
DFDN [ 11 ]
5.20
98.39
8.00
97.45
7.71
95.56
11.01
95.22
7.98
96.66
Table 2: Best-epoch comparison on the DG-FAS benchmark . ACER and AUC are reported under four DG protocols (O, M, I, C denote OULU, MSU-MFSD, Replay-Attack, and CASIA-FASD). Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best performance, respectively. * denotes the use of CelebA-Spoof.
Method
OCI → M
OMI → C
OCM → I
ICM → O
Average
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
SSAN-R [ 18 ]
21.79(15.12)
84.06
26.44(16.44)
78.44
35.39(26.51)
70.13
25.72(12.00)
79.37
27.34(17.52)
78.00
PatchNet [ 27 ]
25.92(18.82)
83.43
36.26(24.93)
71.38
29.75(16.35)
80.53
23.49(11.67)
84.62
28.86(17.96)
79.99
SAFAS [ 9 ]
14.36(8.41)
92.06
19.40(10.62)
88.69
11.48(4.90)
95.74
11.29(1.29)
95.23
14.13(6.26)
92.93
FLIP-MCL [ 10 ]
15.00(10.00)
93.37
3.22 (2.68)
99.44
10.25(6.00)
96.56
5.75(2.05)
98.48
8.56(5.19)
96.96
Ours
8.21 (5.71)
96.95
5.41(3.37)
98.76
9.55 (6.22)
96.72
5.51 (2.22)
98.23
7.17 (4.38)
97.67
Table 3: Domain generalization results on the FAS benchmark . ACER and AUC are averaged over the last 10 epochs. Parentheses indicate ACER differences from Tab. 2 as a measure of learning stability. The same four protocols as Tab. 2 are used.
Method
CS → W
SW → C
CW → S
Average
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ACER (%)
AUC (%)
ViT
21.04
89.12
17.12
89.05
17.16
90.25
18.44
89.47
CLIP-V [ 30 ]
20.00
87.72
17.67
89.67
8.32
97.23
15.33
91.54
CLIP [ 30 ]
17.05
89.37
15.22
91.99
9.34
96.62
13.87
92.66
CA-MoEiT [ 44 ]
16.67
91.02
16.42
93.17
12.57
93.76
15.22
92.59
CoOp [ 47 ]
9.52
90.49
18.30
87.47
11.37
95.46
13.06
91.14
Table 4: Results on CSW benchmarks . Evaluation metrics are ACER and AUC under cross-domain settings on CASIA-Surf-CeFA (C), CASIA-Surf (S), and WMCA (W), where bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best performance, respectively.
(a) Protocol 1: Best epochs
PMN
PCGAN
OCI → M
OMI → C
OCM → I
ICM → O
Avg.
CL
PL
Syn
10.42
4.44
7.75
6.11
7.18
✓
10.00
2.04
6.67
3.38
5.52
✓
7.50
2.22
5.25
5.14
5.03
✓
✓
5.00
3.33
6.67
4.81
4.95
Table 5: For the ablation study, we report results on a domain-generalization FAS benchmark using ACER. A checkmark indicates the inclusion of each component in PMN and PCGAN, where CL, PL, and Syn denote Center Loss, Patch Loss, and synthesized images, respectively.
Spoof → Live
Live → Spoof
OCI → M
OMI → C
OCM → I
ICM → O
Average
5.00
3.33
6.67
4.81
4.95
✓
5.42
4.44
8.75
4.17
5.70
✓
7.50
6.67
10.00
3.82
7.00
✓
✓
7.50
3.33
11.25
3.02
6.28
Table 6: Ablation study on synthetic-live and synthetic-spoof samples generated by PCGAN. Spoof→Live replaces real live data with artifact-removed spoof images, while Live→Spoof replaces real spoof data with artifact-injected live images. ACER (%) is reported under four cross-domain protocols.
(a)Protocol 1: Best epochs
Origin
Syn
OULU
MSU
Idiap
CASIA
Average
✓
0.00
5.00
7.83
4.63
4.37
✓
8.33
25.00
16.33
7.96
14.41
✓
✓
0.00
7.50
5.17
4.44
4.28
Table 7: ACER (%) performance on different datasets. We train the model using either the original images (Original OULU) or synthesized images (Syn OULU).
Range
OCI → M
OMI → C
OCM → I
ICM → O
Avg.
0.2-1.0
2.50
2.04
3.33
3.29
2.79
0.2-0.2
5.00
1.11
8.50
3.38
4.50
0.4-0.4
5.42
2.22
11.67
2.22
5.38
0.6-0.6
7.08
2.22
10.00
3.38
5.67
0.8-0.8
5.00
1.11
10.00
3.33
4.86
Table 8: Experimental results show the impact of changing the random cropping size. The metrics used in this experiment are the ACER.
Figure 2: Examples displayed each cropping approach.
(a) Protocol 1: Best epochs
Method
OCI → M
OMI → C
OCM → I
ICM → O
Avg.
RC
2.50
2.04
3.33
3.29
2.79
CC
7.50
1.11
8.33
4.77
5.43
LC
4.17
2.22
10.00
2.59
4.74
Table 9: Experimental results on the domain-generalization for FAS benchmark. The metrics used in this experiment are the ACER. RC, CC, and LC mean Random Cropping, Center Cropping, and Left Up Cropping, respectively.
Figure 3: Grad-CAM visualizations under the MOI→C protocol. Activation maps for the attack class on the ROSE-Youtu dataset are shown to evaluate robustness to unseen partial attacks. (a) Attack image. (b) ResNet50 without PMN and PCGAN. (c) Our model with PMN. (d) Our model with both PMN and PCGAN.
Figure 4: Cross class results with Pattern Conversion GANs. The images show the artifact pattern detection results by Canny detection and Hough Transform. (c) shows the artifact-pattern removal results from (b). (d) inserts artifact patterns from (a) into (b).
Figure 5: Distinct visual artifacts extracted via Sobel filtering. (a)–(c) are taken from Fig. 1 .
Method
Generator
Detector
Inference
Image Encoder
Text Encoder
Type
Parameters
Flops
Parameters
Flops
Parameters
Flops
Parameters
Flops
Inference Time
ViT [ 48 ]
None
-
-
86.19M
17.58G
-
-
86.19M
17.58G
0.007
FLIP-IT [ 10 ]
None
-
-
86.19M
17.58G
63.11M
35.81M
86.19M
17.58G
0.0010
FLIP-MCL [ 10 ]
None
-
-
86.19M
52.74G
83.05M
35.86M
86.19M
17.58G
0.0010
Ca-MoEiT [ 44 ]
None
-
-
86.19M
17.58G
-
-
86.19M
17.58G
-
Table 10: Computational cost comparison in terms of parameters and FLOPs . The generator is used only during training, so inference cost reflects the detector alone.
Face Anti-Spoofing (FAS) is essential for the security of facial recognition systems in diverse scenarios such as payment processing and surveillance. Current multimodal FAS methods often struggle with effective generalization, mainly due to modality-specific biases and domain shifts. To address these challenges, we introduce the Multimodal Denoising and Alignment (MMDA) framework. By leveraging the zero-shot generalization capability of CLIP, the MMDA framework effectively suppresses noise in multimodal data through denoising and alignment mechanisms, thereby significantly enhancing the generalization performance of cross-modal alignment. The Modality-Domain Joint Differential Attention (MD2A) module in MMDA concurrently mitigates the impacts of domain and modality noise by refining the attention mechanism based on extracted common noise features. Furthermore, the Representation Space Soft (RS2) Alignment strategy utilizes the pre-trained CLIP model to align multi-domain multimodal data into a generalized representation space in a flexible manner, preserving intricate representations and enhancing the model's adaptability to various unseen conditions. We also design a U-shaped Dual Space Adaptation (U-DSA) module to enhance the adaptability of representations while maintaining generalization performance. These improvements not only enhance the framework's generalization capabilities but also boost its ability to represent complex representations. Our experimental results on four benchmark datasets under different evaluation protocols demonstrate that the MMDA framework outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods in terms of cross-domain generalization and multimodal detection accuracy. The code will be released soon.
Yingjie Ma, Xun Lin, Zitong Yu +7
College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University · School of Computing and Information Technology, Great Bay University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong +5
Face Anti-Spoofing (FAS) remains challenging due to the requirement for robust domain generalization across unseen environments. While recent trends leverage Vision-Language Models (VLMs) for semantic supervision, these multimodal approaches often demand prohibitive computational resources and exhibit high inference latency. Furthermore, their efficacy is inherently limited by the quality of the underlying visual features. This paper revisits the potential of vision-only foundation models to establish a highly efficient and robust baseline for FAS. We conduct a systematic benchmarking of 15 pre-trained models, such as supervised CNNs, supervised ViTs, and self-supervised ViTs, under severe cross-domain scenarios including the MICO and Limited Source Domains (LSD) protocols. Our comprehensive analysis reveals that self-supervised vision models, particularly DINOv2 with Registers, significantly suppress attention artifacts and capture critical, fine-grained spoofing cues. Combined with Face Anti-Spoofing Data Augmentation (FAS-Aug), Patch-wise Data Augmentation (PDA) and Attention-weighted Patch Loss (APL), our proposed vision-only baseline achieves state-of-the-art performance in the MICO protocol. This baseline outperforms existing methods under the data-constrained LSD protocol while maintaining superior computational efficiency. This work provides a definitive vision-only baseline for FAS, demonstrating that optimized self-supervised vision transformers can serve as a backbone for both vision-only and future multimodal FAS systems. The project page is available at: https://gsisaoki.github.io/FAS-VFMbenchmark-CVPRW2026/ .
Mika Feng, Pierre Gallin-Martel, Koichi Ito +1
Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University, Japan
Face anti-spoofing (FAS) is increasingly expected to provide not only bona fide/spoof decisions, but also attack semantics and image-grounded evidence for human inspection. Existing discriminative FAS models remain largely label-centric, while recent MLLM-based methods offer structured outputs but still rely mainly on supervised fine-tuning, often producing template-like rationales and weak optimization for difficult attacks. We propose FAS-R1, a two-stage reasoning-oriented MLLM framework for unified FAS prediction, covering authenticity classification, attack-type recognition and spoof-region localization. FAS-R1 first uses FAS-R1-23K, a high-quality long-CoT dataset, for cold-start supervised fine-tuning, and then performs FAS-specific GRPO post-training. Degradation-Simulated Augmentation (DSA) encourages stable spoof-cue reasoning across visual-quality shifts, while Difficulty-Aware GRPO (DA-GRPO) mitigates easy-sample dominance that may leave difficult task--attack groups under-optimized, especially for subtle or ambiguous attacks such as makeup and mask attacks. The main 3B FAS-R1 model achieves 98.75% authenticity accuracy, 93.33% attack-type accuracy, and 96.30/94.73% AP@40/AP@50 in-domain. It also outperforms the compared systems in cross-domain authenticity generalization and answer-and-rationale quality. Experiments with different base models further show favorable scaling behavior. The code will be released soon.
Hongyang Wang, Yichen Shi, Hongrui Li +3
Shijiazhuang Tiedao University · Fudan University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University +2