Face morphing attacks, in which the biometric traits of two or more identities are blended into a single face image, pose a severe threat to identity document issuance and automated border control. Consequently, a large body of work has proposed Single-image Morphing Attack Detection (S-MAD) algorithms and benchmarked them on datasets such as SYN-MAD22. However, the majority of these benchmarks operate exclusively in the digital domain, which contrasts with the real-world passport issuance pipeline in some countries, which still requires an applicant-supplied photograph to be printed and subsequently re-scanned before it is embedded in the identity document or fed into an automated verification system. This print-scan step introduces halftoning, resampling, color-space, and sensor noise that are absent from digital pipelines, and may mask the high-frequency artifacts that S-MAD models rely on. In this work, we introduce a print-scan version of the SYN-MAD22 dataset, obtained by printing and re-scanning all bona fide and morphed images at 300 and 600 DPI, and we use it to evaluate eight state-of-the-art S-MAD models trained exclusively on digital data. We additionally repeat the acquisition with a second scanner to assess cross-device robustness. Our results show that detectors that achieve near state-of-the-art performance in the digital domain suffer a more than threefold increase in average equal error rate, with the same qualitative degradation observed across both scanning devices, exposing a critical, previously under-reported gap between digital-benchmark performance and robustness to print-scan degradation.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Visual comparison of the digital and print-scanned versions of a representative SYN-MAD22 image. Absolute difference maps reveal spatial changes in facial texture, edges, and color between the digital and print-scanned images, whereas the differences between the two scanning resolutions are comparatively small.
Related Works
Bona fide
Morphs
Morph types
Printers / scanners
MAD models
FR systems
P&S train
Public
Raghavendra et al. [ 29 ]
352
431
1
1 / 2
1
–
✓
–
NIST FRVT MORPH [ 24 ]
2,739
3,604
n/r
1 / 1
submitted
–
n/r
Seq.
SOTAMD [ 30 ]
1,096
3,703
multiple
multiple / multiple
submitted
–
n/r
Seq.
Tapia et al. [ 34 , 35 ]
984
3,856
4
n/r / 1
2
–
✓
✗
Zhang [ 37 ]
1,270
2,500
5
1 / 1
8
–
✓
✗
Patwardhan et al. [ 25 ]
n/r
n/r
5
2 / 1
4
–
✗
✗
TABLE I: Comparison with prior print-scan (P&S) MAD works. Bona fide/morph counts refer to P&S images. n/r = not reported; – = not studied; Seq. = sequestered (evaluation only via submission). P&S train = detectors trained or fine-tuned with real or simulated P&S data; ours is intentionally test-only, so results measure cross-domain generalization. Ours is the only open benchmark with a large panel of S-MAD models, two scanners and FR analysis.
Fig. 2: Print-scan acquisition and evaluation pipeline. Digital SYN-MAD22 [ 15 ] images (bona fide and morphed) are arranged in groups of four on A4 sheets and printed on a laser-jet printer. Each image is accompanied by a QR code containing the metadata required to associate the scanned image with its original digital sample. The sheets are re-scanned at 300 and 600 DPI using a multifunction scanner and subsequently automatically detected, cropped, and geometrically aligned to the original ICAO-compliant crop. The resulting images are used to evaluate eight S-MAD detectors, and their results are compared to the digital images as a reference condition.
Subset
Conditions
Bona fide
Morphs
Image instances
Digital
1
204
5,483
5,687
Print–scan
4
204
5,483
22,748
Total
5
–
–
28,435
TABLE II: Composition of MAD22-PS. The four physical print–scan conditions correspond to two scanners (C250i and C450i) at 300 and 600 DPI. Morphs span six generation algorithms: OpenCV, FaceMorpher, WebMorph, MIPGAN-I [ 38 ] , MIPGAN-II [ 38 ] and MorDIFF [ 4 ] .
S-MAD Detector
Acquisition
Image level morphing
Representation level morphing
Average
OpenCV
FaceMorpher
WebMorph
MIPGAN-I [ 38 ]
MIPGAN-II [ 38 ]
MorDIFF [ 4 ]
MixFaceNet-MAD [ 5 ]
Digital
8.33
4.60
18.20
16.70
20.62
8.50
12.83
PS600
15.04
6.82
26.96
43.14
44.04
84.97
36.83
PS300
15.20
6.86
28.92
28.43
31.37
76.49
31.21
Inception-MAD [ 5 ]
Digital
7.52
0.00
18.00
10.90
16.22
5.30
9.66
PS600
9.51
2.60
30.76
47.84
48.19
48.61
31.25
TABLE III: EER (%, ↓ ) of eight S-MAD models under digital and print–scan acquisition on SYN-MAD22 [ 15 ] using the Konica Minolta bizhub C250i. PS600 and PS300 denote print–scan acquisition at 600 and 300 dpi, respectively. Morphing algorithms are grouped according to whether morph generation operates at the image or representation level.
Digital
C250i
C450i
PS300
PS600
PS300
PS600
Average EER
11.00
41.72
41.85
39.78
38.96
TABLE IV: Cross-scanner comparison of S-MAD performance. Average EER (%, ↓ ) across eight detectors and six morphing algorithms. Results are reported for the original digital images and for print–scan acquisition using two scanners at 300 and 600 dpi.
FR system
Acquisition
Image level morphing
Representation level morphing
OpenCV
FaceMorpher
WebMorph
MIPGAN-I [ 38 ]
MIPGAN-II [ 38 ]
MorDIFF [ 4 ]
CurricularFace [ 14 ]
Digital
0.996/0.986
0.962/0.913
0.990/0.986
0.962/0.890
0.953/0.832
0.995/0.986
PS600
0.996/0.986
0.974/0.934
0.992/0.988
0.955/0.862
0.935/0.812
0.993/0.971
PS300
1.000/0.987
0.972/0.930
0.992/0.986
0.960/0.874
0.942/0.826
0.993/0.969
ElasticFace [ 2 ]
Digital
0.997/0.980
0.962/0.913
0.990/0.986
0.980/0.845
0.953/0.778
0.990/0.948
PS600
0.999/0.988
0.965/0.939
0.990/0.986
0.965/0.896
0.961/0.888
0.992/0.967
TABLE V: Morphing vulnerability of four face recognition (FR) systems under digital and print–scan acquisition using the Konica Minolta bizhub C250i. Each cell reports MMPMR100/MMPMR1000 ( ↑ ; higher means the morph is a more successful attack). PS600 and PS300 indicate print–scan acquisition at 600 and 300 dpi, respectively. Morphing algorithms are grouped according to whether morph generation operates at the image or representation level.