Evaluating the utility of facial identification information: Accuracy versus precision

Facial identification evidence obtained from eyewitnesses, such as person descriptions and facial composites, plays a fundamental role in criminal investigations and is regularly regarded as valuable evidence for apprehending and prosecuting perpetrators. However, the reliability of such facial identification information is often queried. Person descriptions are frequently reported in the research literature as being vague and generalisable, whilst facial composites often exhibit a poor likeness to an intended target face. This raises questions regarding the accuracy of eyewitness facial identification information and its ability to facilitate efficient searches for unknown perpetrators of crimes. More specifically, it questions whether individuals, blind to the appearance of a perpetrator of a crime (i.e. the public), can correctly identify the intended target face conveyed by facial identification information recalled from eyewitness memory, and which of the two traditional facial identification formats would be better relied upon by law enforcement to enable such searches. To investigate this, in the current study (N=167) we employed two metrics – identification accuracy and identification precision – to assess the utility of different formats of eyewitness facial identification information in enabling participants to correctly identify an unknown target face across three different formats: facial descriptions, facial composites and computer-generated description-based synthetic faces. A statistically significant main effect for the format of facial identification information on identification accuracy (p<0.001) was found, with a higher target identification accuracy yielded by facial descriptions in comparison to composites and description-based synthetic faces. However, the reverse relationship was established for identification precision, where composites and description-based synthetic faces enabled significantly greater precision in the narrowing down of a suspect pool than did facial descriptions, but did not necessarily result in the retainment of the intended target face (p<0.001).

[1]  David J. Fleet,et al.  Imagen Video: High Definition Video Generation with Diffusion Models , 2022, ArXiv.

[2]  Prafulla Dhariwal,et al.  Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents , 2022, ArXiv.

[3]  Chang Zhou,et al.  CogView: Mastering Text-to-Image Generation via Transformers , 2021, NeurIPS.

[4]  Prafulla Dhariwal,et al.  Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis , 2021, NeurIPS.

[5]  C. Frowd.  Forensic Facial Composites , 2021 .

[6]  Methods, Measures, and Theories in Eyewitness Identification Tasks , 2021 .

[7]  Xiaohai He,et al.  FTGAN: A Fully-trained Generative Adversarial Networks for Text to Face Generation , 2019, ArXiv.

[8]  Timo Aila,et al.  A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networks , 2018, 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[9]  Zhe Gan,et al.  AttnGAN: Fine-Grained Text to Image Generation with Attentional Generative Adversarial Networks , 2017, 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[10]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using Ibm Spss Statistics , 2017 .

[11]  T. Albright.  Why eyewitnesses fail , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  Generative Adversarial Text to Image Synthesis , 2016, ICML.

[13]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  A decade of evolving composites: regression- and meta-analysis , 2015 .

[14]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  Forensic procedures for facial-composite construction , 2015 .

[15]  Fiona Gabbert,et al.  Interviewing for Face Identification , 2015 .

[16]  Tim Valentine,et al.  Forensic Facial Identification: Theory and Practice of Identification from Eyewitnesses, Composites and Cctv , 2015 .

[17]  R. Malpass,et al.  Face Recall—Methods and Problems , 2014 .

[18]  Herman Aguinis,et al.  Best-Practice Recommendations for Defining, Identifying, and Handling Outliers , 2013 .

[19]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  Catching Even More Offenders with EvoFIT Facial Composites , 2012, 2012 Third International Conference on Emerging Security Technologies.

[20]  S. Clark.  Eyewitness Identification Reform , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[21]  Flavio Manenti,et al.  Outlier detection in large data sets , 2011, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[22]  J. Py,et al.  A method to enhance person description: A field study. , 2009 .

[23]  Lorraine Hope,et al.  Protecting Eyewitness Evidence: Examining the Efficacy of a Self-Administered Interview Tool , 2009, Law and human behavior.

[24]  Christopher J. Solomon,et al.  New methodology in facial composite construction: from theory to practice , 2009, Int. J. Electron. Secur. Digit. Forensics.

[25]  Steve D. Charman,et al.  Exploring the diagnostic utility of facial composites: beliefs of guilt can bias perceived similarity between composite and suspect. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[26]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  Improving the quality of facial composites using a holistic cognitive interview. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[27]  M. Angela Sasse,et al.  Can we ID from CCTV? Image quality in digital CCTV and face identification performance , 2008, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[28]  Charity Brown,et al.  Eliciting person descriptions from eyewitnesses: A survey of police perceptions of eyewitness performance and reported use of interview techniques , 2008 .

[29]  Kyle J. Susa,et al.  A theoretical review and meta-analysis of the description-identification relationship in memory for faces , 2008 .

[30]  D. McQuiston-Surrett,et al.  Externalizing visual images: examining the accuracy of facial descriptions vs. composites as a function of the own-race bias. , 2008, Experimental psychology.

[31]  Tim Valentine,et al.  Facial Composites: Forensic Utility and Psychological Research , 2007 .

[32]  G. Wells,et al.  Facial Composite Production by Eyewitnesses , 2007 .

[33]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  The relative importance of external and internal features of facial composites. , 2007, British journal of psychology.

[34]  David Nunez,et al.  An evaluation of ID: an eigenface based construction system , 2006, South Afr. Comput. J..

[35]  J. Schooler,et al.  Person Descriptions as Eyewitness Evidence , 2006 .

[36]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Use of facial composite systems in US law enforcement agencies , 2006 .

[37]  Pär Anders Granhag,et al.  The man behind the mask: accuracy and predictors of eyewitness offender descriptions. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[38]  Charlie D. Frowd,et al.  EvoFIT: A holistic, evolutionary facial imaging technique for creating composites , 2004, TAP.

[39]  M. Macleod,et al.  Watching the birdie watching you: eyewitness memory for actions using CCTV recordings of actual crimes , 2001 .

[40]  J. Brigham,et al.  Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review , 2001 .

[41]  R. Milne,et al.  Police officers' perceptions of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations. , 1998, The Journal of social psychology.

[42]  Peter J. van Koppen,et al.  Portraying Perpetrators; The Validity of Offender Descriptions by Witnesses , 1997 .

[43]  Margaret Bull Kovera,et al.  Identification of computer-generated facial composites. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[44]  M. Wogalter,et al.  Face composite construction : in-view and from-memory quality and improvement with practice , 1991 .

[45]  S. Penrod,et al.  Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. , 1986 .

[46]  Barbora Zahradnikova,et al.  Facial composite systems: review , 2016, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[47]  Gary F. Templeton.  A Two-Step Approach for Transforming Continuous Variables to Normal: Implications and Recommendations for IS Research , 2011, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[48]  Agnieszka M. Lech,et al.  The Relative Utility of Verbal Descriptions and Facial Composites in Facial Identifications , 2011 .

[49]  G. Wolters,et al.  Eyewitness Memory of a Supermarket Robbery: A Case Study of Accuracy and Confidence After 3 Months , 2009, Law and human behavior.

[50]  G. Wagstaff.  The Cognitive Interview , 2009 .

[51]  Hayley Ness,et al.  Improving composite images of faces produced by eyewitnesses. , 2003 .

[52]  R. Bull,et al.  Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice , 1999 .

[53]  R. Milne,et al.  The cognitive interview: A survey of its forensic effectiveness , 1999 .

[54]  S. L. Sporer.  Psychological aspects of person descriptions. , 1996 .

[55]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Psychological issues in eyewitness identification. , 1996 .

[56]  K. R. Laughery,et al.  Dynamics of Facial Recall , 1986 .

[57]  Hadyn D. Ellis,et al.  Photofit constructions versus verbal descriptions of faces. , 1981 .