Biometrics

W. A. Barrett, cmpe dept., SJSU vs. 2.0 Theory in a nutshell Segmentation Recognition Verification Fingerprints/Face/Iris/Speaker recognition Logface matching

Theory in a Nutshell

Capture images of objects (usually persons) Segment a view Compress views to biometric codes. Compare two biometric codes, yielding a biometric difference. When two differences are small enough (less than some threshold), the corresponding objects are considered the same. Otherwise the objects are considered different.

A Sample Database
NAME Bill Barrett Dave Matthews Mike Sanders Fred Friendly Bill Clinton BIOCODE 5.9.6.30.7.6 3.9.4.25.9.7 5.8.4.33.6.5 8.4.2.28.7.3 2.6.3.30.6.7

distance j = square(D[j,i] - C[i])/var[i] where D[j,i] = database js component i, 1 <= j <= 5 (rows) C[i] = candidate component i, 1 <= i <= 6 (columns) var[i]= variance from database, component i

Distance Calculation
NAME Bill Barrett Dave Matthews Mike Sanders Fred Friendly Bill Clinton BIOCODE 5.9.6.30.7.6 3.9.4.25.9.7 5.8.4.33.6.5 8.4.2.28.7.3 2.6.3.30.6.7 AVERAGE VARIANCE Candidate: BIOCOD ES 5 9 3 9 5 8 8 4 2 6 4.6 7.2 5.3 4.7 4.8 7.9 6 4 4 2 3 3.8 2.2 3.2 30 25 33 28 30 29.2 8.7 31 7 9 6 7 6 7 1.5 6.2 6 7 5 3 7 5.6 2.8 5.1

Bill Barrett Dave Matthews Mike Sanders Fred Friendly Bill Clinton

DISTANCE D ISTANCES 4.66 0.01 0.26 11.81 0.61 0.26 0.79 0.01 0 8.86 1.93 3.24 3.7 1.48 0.77

3.56 0.29 0.29 0.65 0.02

0.11 4.14 0.46 1.03 0.11

0.43 5.23 0.03 0.43 0.03

0.29 1.29 0 1.58 1.29

(see spreadsheet local.xls or web.xls

Segmentation

Image typically contains background noise Segmentation is isolating a biometric view from the image

Motion segmentation uses video to reject static background pixels Two or more cameras yield distance measures Given a static image, segmentation requires heuristic methods

Static segmentation may be the most difficult design challenge of a biometric system

Recognition

Form an enrolled database of biometric codes each entry represents a different candidate each candidate is associated with a biometric code, name, address, etc. Capture a view of a candidate and compute its biometric code C. Compare C with all candidates in the database. Form a list of database candidates, ordered by increasing biometric distance. Front of the list should be the matching candidates.

Recognition (2)

If the top candidate has a small-enough biometric distance, we say that we have recognized the candidate. If the top candidate's biometric distance is too large, then the candidate has not been recognized. This implies a threshold level has been determined for biometric differences

Recognition -- Four Cases

(good) Top candidate's biocode is small enough, and is the correct person. (bad) Top candidate's biocode is small enough, but is the wrong person (false acceptance) (good) Top candidate's biocode is too large, and this is the wrong person. (bad) Top candidate's biocode is too large, yet this is the correct person (false rejection)

Recognition Goals

Maximize correct matching of a candidate to the database Minimize false acceptance and false recognition

Verification

Candidate presents biometric image PLUS identification information, such as a credit card plus PIN System locates candidate in the database through the credit card/PIN data One biometric distance is computed -- if small enough, the candidate is verified. Can still have a false acceptance or false rejection!

Authentics-Imposters

Biometric quality is measured statistically by acquiring two distributions -Authentics -- distribution of biometric distances of the same persons, but with different images Imposters -- distribution of biometric distances of images of pairs of different persons These should be widely separated, but often aren't

Authentics - Imposters

Authentics-Imposters

The two distributions will overlap in general The extent of the overlap relative to the two areas provides a measure of the quality of this biometric measure Small overlap -- good biometric Large overlap -- poor biometric Best viewed through the accumulated distribution

shows probability of correct identification

See spreadsheet local.xls or web.xls for a model

Authentics-Imposters

Choice of Threshold

At the crossover of the A-I curves, we have a threshold that makes

false acceptance rate == false rejection rate

Assumes that the relative number of attempts is balanced Moving the threshold to the left means more false rejections, but fewer false acceptances Moving the threshold to the right means fewer false rejections, more false acceptances

Quality Measure

The quality of a biometric measure can be estimated from these two curves

use a good representative sample of measurements (not easily done!) find the crossover point FARR = % at crossover point

FARR: False Acceptance-Recognition Ratio

View Compression

Task: form a biometric code from a view

Fast Fourier transform Gabor wavelet transform Legendre moments Chebyshev moments pseudo-Zernike moments eliminate unwanted view variations (scale, rotation, translation, avg intensity, etc.) produce maximum discrimination, i.e. smallest possible FARR

The choice should:

Legendre Moments
(2 p 1)(2q 1) Lpq 11Pp ( x) Pq ( y) f ( x, y) dx dy 4
1 1

f(x,y) is the image intensity vector

(2n 1) x Pn 1 ( x) (n 1) Pn 2 ( x) Pn ( x) n

P0(x) = 1, P1(x) = x

Legendre Moments

Are orthogonal and complete

the view can be reconstructed, given enough (p,q) pairs the translation component is in (0,0) face: need to rescale to a normal view, typically done by finding the eyes, etc. face: measure degrades with rotation

Are translation invariant

Are not scale invariant

Are not rotation invariant

pseudo-Zernike Moments

Much more complex set of polynomials Are orthogonal and complete Not scale or translation invariant Certain functions of the moments are rotation invariant

most human biometrics don't need this

Used in advanced optical calculations Useful for logface biometrics

Face Recognition

Many methods have been proposed

eigenfaces (Alex Pentland, MIT) feature extraction (Joseph Attick, Identix) some are proprietary uniform lighting conditions full frontal face -- no side views plain expression no attempt at disguise good segmentation, centering the eyes

Discrimination depends critically on

Best results FARR = 1-5%

Face Recognition

Relatively high FARR means restricted use:

verification under controlled conditions (disguise can be used to evade detection, but difficult to fake a verification trial) sifting out a small number of candidates from a larger set recognition critical applications

NOT indicated for

Fingerprints

For digital prints, the FBI routinely finds persons in their large national database from prints sent through the internet (AFIS) Statistics are unknown, but believed to have a FARR less than 1E-5

Fingerprint analysis for forensic purposes has a much smaller FARR Small or smudged prints (typical of crime scenes) are likely to result in identification errors.

Iris Scanning

Iris Scanning

Image capture requires telephoto camera

Daugman recommends infrared light Daugman uses a circle-finding algorithm

Locate pupil (heuristic)

Locate sclera surrounds pupil Locate upper and lower eyelids Form biocode from iris patterns

Daugman uses 8 bands and a Gabor filtering to yield a 256 byte code
Daugman uses a Hamming distance measure

Distance measure

Iris Scan A-I distribution

from John Daugman's patent

Iris Issues

Pupil finding is difficult Background light sources reflected in pupil Eyelashes sometimes obscure iris Eyes may be partly closed Eye movements are rapid, may cause image capture failure Telephoto centering and autofocus important Capture system can be expensive

Sensars manufacturing cost ~$2,000

Recognition failure rate fairly large ~1-5%

Sensar, Inc.

A New Jersey startup, 1990-2000 period Used the Daugman iris patent Developed extraordinary optics system

two cameras, one wide-angle, the other a telephoto with autofocus and angular tracking system could accurately identify a person as he/she approached an ATM machine

tested in a Fort Worth bank system Sensar failed for various reasons

Speaker Recognition

Starts with an audio sample of a human voice Typically, person is prompted to repeat certain phrases Speech fragment compressed by FFT or wavelet transforms Identification/verification similar to other biometrics FARR ~ 1E-2 at best

Forest Service Project

Goal -- Match a cut log face to its mating stump U. S. Forest Service interested in combating theft of timber from national forests

start with photo of stump face find stump face in a collection of photographs of faces taken at various sawmills use biometrics to filter out the most likely candidates use forensic tools to indict and prosecute thieves

Logface System Features

Color images input by digital camera, many supported image formats Semi-automatic segmentation of log faces

operator segmentation needed

Uses pseudo-Zernike polynomials to obtain a rotation-invariant biometric code Database mysql employed under Linux Friendly user environment for locating matching faces from a database

Logface Results

Selected Bibliography
http://www.biometrics.org -- Biometrics web site http://www.identix.com -- Face recognition, fingerprint vendor http://www.iritech.com -- Daugmans iris scanning company, patent holder John Daugman, patent no. 5,291,560, Iris scanning patent Wechsler et al, editors, Face Recognition Maltoni, Maio, Jain & Prabhakar, Handbook of Fingerprint Recognition, Springer, 2003. Mukundan & Ramakrishnan, Moment Functions in Image Analysis, World Scientific, 2003 Duda & Hart, Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis, Wiley Interscience Fukunaga, Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition, Academic Press Theodoridis & Koutroumbas, Pattern Recognition, Academic Press

Summary

Biometrics is an established discipline ...though research is ongoing Mechanism is

compressing an image into a biocode comparing pairs of biocodes with a distance measure d(I1, I2) forming a database of enrollees locating or verifying a candidate against the database with the distance measure

Summary

FARR = equal false acceptance and false rejection ratio Most popular human biometrics

digital fingerprints, with FARR ~ 1E-5 forensic fingerprints (non-digital), FARR < 1E-7 face, with FARR ~ 1E-2 at best iris, with FARR < 1E-7 speaker recognition, with FARR < 1E-2

Other applications Draws upon pattern recognition theory