Predicting good, bad and ugly match Pairs

Several sources of variation in facial appearance that affect face matching performance have long been investigated. The recently introduced GBU challenge problem [1] indicates that there can be significant variation in performance across different partitions of the data, even when the impact of most known factors is eliminated or significantly reduced by the data collection and experimentation protocol. The GBU challenge problem consists of three partitions which are called the Good (easy to match), the Bad (average matching difficulty) and the Ugly (difficult to match). In this paper, we investigate various image and facial characteristics that can account for the observed significant difference in performance across these partitions. Given a match pair, we aim to predict the partition it belongs to. Partial Least Squares (PLS)-based regression is used to perform the prediction task. Our analysis indicates that the match pairs from the three partitions differ from each other in terms of simple but often ignored factors like image sharpness, hue, saturation and extent of facial expressions.

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

[2]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  When high-quality face images match poorly , 2011, Face and Gesture 2011.

[3]  Xiang Zhu,et al.  A no-reference sharpness metric sensitive to blur and noise , 2009, 2009 International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience.

[4]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  FRVT 2006 and ICE 2006 large-scale results , 2007 .

[5]  H. Martens Partial least squares regression (PLSR) , 1993 .

[6]  H. Abdi Partial least squares regression and projection on latent structure regression (PLS Regression) , 2010 .

[7]  Patrick J. Flynn,et al.  Overview of the face recognition grand challenge , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[8]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  FRVT 2006 and ICE 2006 Large-Scale Experimental Results , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[9]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  How features of the human face affect recognition: a statistical comparison of three face recognition algorithms , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2004. CVPR 2004..

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

[11]  P. Jonathon Phillips,et al.  An introduction to biometric-completeness: The equivalence of matching and quality , 2009, 2009 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications, and Systems.

[12]  H. Abdi Partial Least Square Regression PLS-Regression , 2007 .

[13]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  Factors that influence algorithm performance in the Face Recognition Grand Challenge , 2009, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[14]  Fred Nicolls,et al.  Locating Facial Features with an Extended Active Shape Model , 2008, ECCV.

[15]  M. Subasic,et al.  Face image validation system , 2005, ISPA 2005. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis, 2005..

[16]  B. Martin,et al.  Quality Assessment of Facial Images , 2006, 2006 Biometrics Symposium: Special Session on Research at the Biometric Consortium Conference.