Closed AIshutin closed 3 years ago
Hi: Yes, it is different from the definition of Oulu-NPU, because we follow the calculation fashion of APCER and BPCER from this repo, this paper is accepted by CVPR.
Thanks for help.
You wrote in the paper:
(ACER is calculated at EER)
On the other hand, in CDCN: result ACER is minimum of ACER(thr_i).
Just to finally confirm, should I follow the code in CDCN`s implementation, not the CelebA-Spoof paper?
Sorry, I still don't understand( . Can you please explain, what's the difference between FAR and APCER, when calculated at EER threshold?
Then, BPCER = FRR_i (which FRR_i == FAR_i) -> BPCER = APCER, no?
(From the paper I suppose not, but I can't find the mistake.)
Thanks for your remind, we realize we do totally follow the calculation fashion from this repo.
Again, big thanks for help.
Hi!
I've read appendix of the paper and experiments part of OULU-NPU, which is referenced in paper, however, in my understanding definitions of APCER in CelebA-Spoof and OULU-NPU are different (and that seems strange). Can you please clarify what exactly do you mean by APCER and BPCER?
In OULU-NPU:
i. e. this maximum error across different attacks.
In CelebA-Spoof:
which seems to be simply FAR and FRR.
Thanks.