| Literature DB >> 31430971 |
Abstract
We investigated machine learning-based joint banknote recognition and counterfeit detection method. Unlike existing methods, since the proposed method simultaneously recognize banknote type and detect counterfeit detection, it is significantly faster than existing serial banknote recognition and counterfeit detection methods. Furthermore, we propose an explainable artificial intelligence method for visualizing regions that contributed to the recognition and detection. Using the visualization, it is possible to understand the behavior of the trained machine learning system. In experiments using the United State Dollar and the European Union Euro banknotes, the proposed method shows significant improvement in computation time from conventional serial method.Entities:
Keywords: banknote recognition; counterfeit banknote detection; counterfeit detection system; explainable artificial intelligence; joint banknote recognition
Year: 2019 PMID: 31430971 PMCID: PMC6719953 DOI: 10.3390/s19163607
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
A summary comparison for pros and cons.
| Methods | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Sequential method | - Relatively easy to train | - Relatively long inference time |
| Joint method using CNN for image classification | - | - Extremely slow |
| Proposed method | - Fast inference time | - Relatively difficult to train |
Figure 1Grad-CAM results for some example banknotes. The most left column to the third column show visible, infrared transmission, and infrared reflection images of banknotes. The forth column and the most right column show Grad-CAM results for banknote recognition and counterfeit detection, reflectively.
Figure 2Possible banknote directions.
Figure 3Different modality images. Leftmost column shows visible, center column shows infrared transmission, and rightmost column shows infrared reflection images.
Figure 4Joint banknote recognition and counterfeit detection system.
Figure 5pGrad-Cam flow.
Banknote datasets.
| Nation | Denomination | The Number of Dataset | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Train | Validation | Test | ||||||
| Series | Type | Genuine | Counterfeit | Genuine | Counterfeit | Genuine | Counterfeit | |
| EUR | First | 5 EUR | 3266 | 8 | 182 | 1 | 182 | 1 |
| 10 EUR | 744 | 76 | 42 | 2 | 42 | 2 | ||
| 20 EUR | 634 | 140 | 36 | 3 | 36 | 3 | ||
| 50 EUR | 864 | 536 | 49 | 8 | 49 | 8 | ||
| 100 EUR | 3110 | 216 | 173 | 3 | 173 | 3 | ||
| 200 EUR | 824 | 1364 | 46 | 20 | 46 | 20 | ||
| 500 EUR | 967 | 644 | 54 | 9 | 54 | 9 | ||
| Second | 5 EUR | 1535 | 112 | 86 | 2 | 86 | 2 | |
| 10 EUR | 2304 | 40 | 129 | 1 | 129 | 1 | ||
| 20 EUR | 1371 | 268 | 77 | 4 | 77 | 4 | ||
| 50 EUR | 2702 | 72 | 151 | 1 | 151 | 1 | ||
| Total | 18,321 | 3476 | 1025 | 54 | 1025 | 54 | ||
| USD | 1 USD | 1735 | 0 | 97 | 0 | 97 | 0 | |
| 2 USD | 3780 | 0 | 210 | 0 | 210 | 0 | ||
| 5 USD | 2574 | 0 | 143 | 0 | 143 | 0 | ||
| 10 USD | 5298 | 1664 | 295 | 24 | 295 | 24 | ||
| 20 USD | 8369 | 5436 | 466 | 76 | 466 | 76 | ||
| 50 USD | 8263 | 340 | 460 | 5 | 460 | 5 | ||
| 100 USD | 3564 | 80 | 198 | 2 | 198 | 2 | ||
| Total | 33,583 | 7520 | 1869 | 107 | 1869 | 107 | ||
Figure 6Average batch losses of convergence graphs.
Accuracy of banknote system.
| Nation | Dataset | Number of Banknotes (Counterfeit) | Number of Well-Classified (Counterfeit) | Accuracy (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sequential Method | Joint GoogleNet | Proposed Method | ||||
| EUR | Train and validation | 22,876 (3530) | 22,876 (3530) | 22,876/22,876 (100) | 22,876/22,876 (100) | 22,876/22,876 (100) |
| Test | 1079 (54) | 1079 (54) | 1079/1079 (100) | 1079/1079 (100) | 1079/1079 (100) | |
| USD | Train and validation | 43,079 (7627) | 43,079 (7627) | 43,079/43,079 (100) | 43,079/43,079 (100) | 43,079/43,079 (100) |
| Test | 1976 (107) | 1976 (107) | 1976/1976 (100) | 1976/1976 (100) | 1976/1976 (100) | |
Mean and variance of inference time.
| Model | Processing Time on Average (variance) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preprocessing | Banknote Recognition | Counterfeit Detection | Total | |
| Sequential | 3.57 ms (0.46) | 4.18 ms (0.86) | 3.94 ms (0.69) | 11.69 ms (3.02) |
| Joint GoogleNet | 3.53 ms (0.12) | 947.12 ms (2817.44) | 950.65 ms (2804.65) | |
| Proposed | 3.73 ms (0.49) | 4.36 ms (0.72) | 8.09 ms (1.18) | |
Grad-CAM and pGrad-CAM results.
| Banknote | Input Images | Banknote Recognition | Counterfeit Detection | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visible | Infrared Transmission | Infrared Reflection | Grad-CAM | pGrad-CAM | Grad-CAM | pGrad-CAM | |
| 20 EUR first series |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 EUR second series |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 200 EUR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 500 EUR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 USD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 USD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 50 USD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 100 USD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Grad-CAM and pGrad-CAM results.
| Banknote | Method | Input Example Images | Explainable Artificial Intelligence | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visible | Infrared Transmission | Infrared Reflection | Banknote Denomination | Banknote Direction | Counterfeit Detection | ||
| 20 EUR first series | Grad-CAM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pGrad-CAM |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 100 EUR | Grad-CAM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pGrad-CAM |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 10 USD | Grad-CAM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pGrad-CAM |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 20 USD | Grad-CAM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pGrad-CAM |
|
|
|
|
|
| |