skip to main content
10.1145/3097983.3098186acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Fake vs Real Goods Problem: Microscopy and Machine Learning to the Rescue

Published:13 August 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Counterfeiting of physical goods is a global problem amounting to nearly 7% of world trade. While there have been a variety of overt technologies like holograms and specialized barcodes and covert technologies like taggants and PUFs, these solutions have had a limited impact on the counterfeit market due to a variety of factors - clonability, cost or adoption barriers. In this paper, we introduce a new mechanism that uses machine learning algorithms on microscopic images of physical objects to distinguish between genuine and counterfeit versions of the same product. The underlying principle of our system stems from the idea that microscopic characteristics in a genuine product or a class of products (corresponding to the same larger product line), exhibit inherent similarities that can be used to distinguish these products from their corresponding counterfeit versions. A key building block for our system is a wide-angle microscopy device compatible with a mobile device that enables a user to easily capture the microscopic image of a large area of a physical object. Based on the captured microscopic images, we show that using machine learning algorithms (ConvNets and bag of words), one can generate a highly accurate classification engine for separating the genuine versions of a product from the counterfeit ones; this property also holds for "super-fake" counterfeits observed in the marketplace that are not easily discernible from the human eye. We describe the design of an end-to-end physical authentication system leveraging mobile devices, portable hardware and a cloud-based object verification ecosystem. We evaluate our system using a large dataset of 3 million images across various objects and materials such as fabrics, leather, pills, electronics, toys and shoes. The classification accuracy is more than 98% and we show how our system works with a cellphone to verify the authenticity of everyday objects.

References

  1. Alpvision. http://www.alpvision.com/cryptoglyph-covert-marking.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambarella Video Security and Surveillance IP-Camera Solutions. http://www.ambarella.com/products/security-ip-cameras.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Counterfeit goods are linked to terror groups - Business - International Herald Tribune. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/business/worldbusiness/12iht-fake.4569452.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Counterfeiting Intelligence Bureau. http://www.iccwbo. org/products-and-services/fighting-commercial-crime/counterfeiting-intelligence-bureau/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Fabric Science kit. http://www.amazon.com/J-J-Pizzutos-Fabric-Science-Swatch/dp/1609013581.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ingenia technology ltd. http://www.ingeniatechnology.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. IQStructures. http://www.iqstructures.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Neenah Paper. http://www.neenahpaper.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. NovaVision. http://www.novavisioninc.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Prooftag. http://www.prooftag.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. skimage: Image processing in Python. http://scikit-image.org /.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Sproxil. http://sproxil.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Tanneries Haas - cuir de veau - Barenia, novocalf. http://www.tanneries-haas.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. TI DM368. http://www.ti.com/product/tms320dm368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Veho Discovery Deluxe 004. http://www.veho-uk.com/main/shop_detail.aspx?article=40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. WHO Anti-counterfeiting technologies for protection of medicines. http://www. who.int/impact/events/IMPACT-ACTechnologiesv3LIS.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Berg, T., Liu, J., Lee, S. W., Alexander, M. L., Jacobs, D. W., and Belhumeur, P. N. Birdsnap: Large-scale fine-grained visual categorization of birds. In Proc. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (June 2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Buchanan, J. D. R., Cowburn, R. P., Jausovec, A.-V., Petit, D., Seem, P., Xiong, G., Atkinson, D., Fenton, K., Allwood, D. A., and Bryan, M. T. Forgery: "Fingerprinting" documents and packaging. Nature 436 (July 2005), 475. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Caputo, B., and Jie, L. A performance evaluation of exact and approximate match kernels for object recognition. Electronic Letters on Computer Vision and Image Analysis 8, 3 (2009), 15--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Clarkson, W., Weyrich, T., Finkelstein, A., Heninger, N. Halderman, A., and Felten, E. Fingerprinting blank paper using commodity scanners. In IEEE Security and Privacy (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., and Fei-Fei, L. ImageNet: A Large-Scale Hierarchical Image Database. In CVPR09(2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. E. Metois, P. Yarin, N. S., and Smith, J. R. Fiberfingerprint identification. In Third Workshop on Automatic Identification (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. et. al, B. J. Surface treated security paper and method and device for producing surface treated security paper, US Patent Number 5,193,854, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. et al, E. B. G. Coatings and ink designs for negotiable instruments, us patent number 6,155,604, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Greene, E. B. Negotiable instrument, us patent number 4,634,148, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03385 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jarrett, K., Kavukcuoglu, K., Ranzato, M., and LeCun, Y. What is the best multi-stage architecture for object recognition? In Computer Vision, 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on (2009), IEEE, pp. 2146--2153. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Jia, Y., Shelhamer, E., Donahue, J., Karayev, S., Long, J., Girshick, R., Guadarrama, S., and Darrell, T. Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5093(2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Kimura, and Yoshihiro. Woven security label, us patent number 6,068,895,2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Hinton, G. E. Imagene classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In NIPS(2012), vol. 1, p. 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Lazebnik, S., Schmid, C., and Ponce, J. Beyond bags of features: Spatial pyramid matching for recognizing natural scene categories. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on (2006), vol. 2, IEEE, pp. 2169--2178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., and Haffner, P. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86, 11 (1998), 2278--2324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Maji, S., Kannala, J., Rahtu, E., Blaschko, M., and Vedaldi, A. Fine-grained visual classification of aircraft. Tech. rep., 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sharma, A., Subramanian, L., and Brewer, E. A. Paperspeckle: microscopic fingerprinting of paper. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (2011), pp. 99--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Simonyan, K., and Zisserman, A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. CoRR abs/1409.1556 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, J. R., and Sutherland, A. V. Microstructure based indicia. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Automatic Identification Advanced Technologies (New York, NY, USA, 1999), ACM, pp. 79--83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y., Sermanet, P., Reed, S., Anguelov D., Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V., and Rabinovich, A. Going deeper with convolutions. In CVPR 2015 (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. van Renesse, R. L. Optical Document Security, Second Edition. Artech House, Inc, Norwood, MA, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Vedaldi, A., and Fulkerson, B. VLFeat: An open and portable library of computer vision algorithms. http://www.vlfeat.org/, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Zeiler, M. D., and Fergus, R. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks CoRR abs/1311.2901 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Zeira, Eitan; Ellett, D. Verification methods employing thermally--imageable substrates, us patent number 6107244, August 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhu, B., Wu, J., and Kankanhalli, M. S. Print signatures for document authentication. In ACM CCS '03 (New York, NY, USA, 2003), pp. 145--15 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The Fake vs Real Goods Problem: Microscopy and Machine Learning to the Rescue

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          KDD '17: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
          August 2017
          2240 pages
          ISBN:9781450348874
          DOI:10.1145/3097983

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 13 August 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          KDD '17 Paper Acceptance Rate64of748submissions,9%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

          Upcoming Conference

          KDD '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader