| Literature DB >> 33167526 |
Zhongyuan Guo1, Hong Zheng1, Changhui You1, Xiaohang Xu1, Xiongbin Wu1, Zhaohui Zheng2, Jianping Ju1.
Abstract
With the rapid development of information technology and the widespread use of the Internet, QR codes are widely used in all walks of life and have a profound impact on people's work and life. However, the QR code itself is likely to be printed and forged, which will cause serious economic losses and criminal offenses. Therefore, it is of great significance to identify the printer source of QR code. A method of printer source identification for scanned QR Code image blocks based on convolutional neural network (PSINet) is proposed, which innovatively introduces a bottleneck residual block (BRB). We give a detailed theoretical discussion and experimental analysis of PSINet in terms of network input, the first convolution layer design based on residual structure, and the overall architecture of the proposed convolution neural network (CNN). Experimental results show that the proposed PSINet in this paper can obtain extremely excellent printer source identification performance, the accuracy of printer source identification of QR code on eight printers can reach 99.82%, which is not only better than LeNet and AlexNet widely used in the field of digital image forensics, but also exceeds state-of-the-art deep learning methods in the field of printer source identification.Entities:
Keywords: QR code; bottleneck residual block; digital image forensics; printer source identification
Year: 2020 PMID: 33167526 PMCID: PMC7663918 DOI: 10.3390/s20216305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The overall flow chart of printer source identification process of QR codes using convolution neural networks (CNNs).
Figure 2Bottleneck residual block (BRB).
Figure 3The identification process of PSINet.
Figure 4The extracted QR code image.
Printer brand and models used in this study.
| No. | Brand | Model |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Canon | iR-ADV C50455051 UFR 2 |
| 1 | Canon | iR-ADV C7260270 UFR 2 |
| 2 | Epson | L310 Series |
| 3 | Fuji | XEROX DocuCentre S2110 |
| 4 | RICOH | Aficio MP7502 |
| 5 | RICOH | Pro 8100s |
| 6 | Samsung | K2200 series |
| 7 | TOSHIBA | e-STUDIO2051C-11606695 |
Figure 5Image samples for QR codes printed by eight printers. (a) Canon iR-ADV C50455051 UFR2, (b) Canon iR-ADV C7260270 UFR2 (Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan), (c) Epson L310 Series(Seiko Epson Ltd., Suwa, Japan), (d) Fuji XEROX DocuCentre S2110, (e) RICOH Aficio MP7502(Ricoh Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), (f) RICOH Pro8100s, (g) Samsung K2200 series(Samsung Electronics Ltd., Seoul, Korea), and (h) TOSHIBA e-STUDIO2051C-11606695(Toshiba, Tokyo, Japan).
The printer identification accuracy of PSINet under different image input sizes, different convolution kernel sizes, and different convolution layers.
| Image Size | 7 Layers | 11 Layers | 15 Layers | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 × 3 | 5 × 5 | 7 × 7 | 3 × 3 | 5 × 5 | 7 × 7 | 3 × 3 | 5 × 5 | 7 × 7 | |
| 99.90% | 99.49% | 99.77% | 99.84% | 99.77% | 99.59% | 97.75% | 98.41% | 96.76% | |
| 99.92% | 99.89% | 99.93% | 99.85% | 99.71% | 99.66% | 98.00% | 98.93% | 99.06% | |
| 99.89% | 99.82% | 99.71% | 99.46% | 99.63% | 99.72% | 99.69% | 98.36% | 99.73% | |
Figure 6Graphical confusion matrices of several CNN methods.
Figure 7Comparison of the accuracy of the four CNN methods.
The accuracy of the four CNN methods.
| Methods | Identification Accuracy (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Ave | |
|
| 99.48% | 99.22% | 29.82% | 99.22% | 100.00% | 99.87% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 90.95% |
|
| 99.87% | 95.18% | 94.53% | 98.44% | 99.74% | 100.00% | 98.44% | 100.00% | 98.27% |
|
| 99.09% | 97.40% | 75.65% | 96.61% | 99.74% | 99.87% | 97.66% | 100.00% | 95.75% |
|
| 100.00% | 100.00% | 98.57% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 99.82% |
Comparison of inference time of four CNNs.
| CNNs | LeNet | AlexNet | Min-Jen Tsai’s | PSINet |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 13 | 24 | 11 | 13 |
Comparison of computational costs of four CNN models.
| CNNs | LeNet | AlexNet | PSDI | PSINet |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 16.2 | 77.0 | 0.43 | 5.18 |