Face recognition: Impostor-based measures of uniqueness and quality

We present a framework, called uniqueness-based nonmatch estimates (UNE), which demonstrates the ability to improve face recognition performance of any face matcher. The first aspect of the framework is a novel metric for measuring the uniqueness of a given individual, called the impostor-based uniqueness measure (IUM). The UNE the maps face match scores from any any face matcher into non-match probability estimates that are conditionally dependent on the probe image's IUM. Using this framework we demonstrate: (i) an improved generalization of matching thresholds (and, subsequently, improved matching accuracy), (ii) a score normalization technique that improves the interoperability for users of different face matchers, and (iii) the predictive ability of IUM towards face recognition accuracy. Studies are conducted on an operational dataset with 16,000 subjects using three different face matchers (two commercial, one proprietary) to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

[1]  Yajie Tian,et al.  Handbook of face recognition , 2003 .

[2]  J. Kittler,et al.  A methodology for separating sheep from goats for controlled enrollment and multimodal fusion , 2008, 2008 Biometrics Symposium.

[3]  Craig I. Watson,et al.  The myth of goats :: how many people have fingerprints that are hard to match? , 2005 .

[4]  Stan Z. Li,et al.  Learning multiview face subspaces and facial pose estimation using independent component analysis , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[5]  Massimo Tistarelli,et al.  Exploiting the “doddington zoo” effect in biometric fusion , 2009, 2009 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications, and Systems.

[6]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification , 1973 .

[7]  Josef Kittler,et al.  Group-specific score normalization for biometric systems , 2010, 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Workshops.

[8]  Elham Tabassi,et al.  Performance of Biometric Quality Measures , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[9]  Law. Policy Executive Summary of the National Academies of Science Reports, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward , 2009 .

[10]  C. Barden,et al.  Proficiency Testing Trends Following the 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward” , 2016 .

[11]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Face Matching and Retrieval in Forensics Applications , 2012, IEEE MultiMedia.

[12]  Shigeo Abe DrEng Pattern Classification , 2001, Springer London.

[13]  Josef Kittler,et al.  A Biometric Menagerie Index for Characterising Template/Model-Specific Variation , 2009, ICB.

[14]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  Biometric zoos: Theory and experimental evidence , 2011, 2011 International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB).

[15]  Douglas A. Reynolds,et al.  SHEEP, GOATS, LAMBS and WOLVES A Statistical Analysis of Speaker Performance in the NIST 1998 Speaker Recognition Evaluation , 1998 .

[16]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  An introduction to the good, the bad, & the ugly face recognition challenge problem , 2011, Face and Gesture 2011.

[17]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Evidential Value of Automated Latent Fingerprint Comparison: An Empirical Approach , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[18]  Patrick J. Flynn,et al.  Empirical Studies of the Existence of the Biometric Menagerie in the FRGC 2.0 Color Image Corpus , 2006, 2006 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop (CVPRW'06).

[19]  Neil Yager,et al.  The Biometric Menagerie , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.