Iris Recognition

Slides adapted from Natalia Schmid and John Daugman

Outline
Anatomy
Iris Recognition System
Image Processing (John Daugman)
- iris localization
- encoding
Measure of Performance
Results
Pros and Cons
References
Anatomy of the Human Eye
Eye = Camera

Cornea bends, refracts,
and focuses light.

Retina = Film for image
projection (converts image
into electrical signals).

Optical nerve transmits
signals to the brain.
Structure of Iris
Iris = Aperture

Different types of muscles:
- the sphincter muscle
(constriction)
- radial muscles (dilation)

Iris is flat

Color: pigment cells called
melanin

The color texture, and patterns
are unique.
Individuality of Iris
Left and right eye irises have distinctive pattern.
Iris Recognition System
Localization
Acquisition
IrisCode
Gabor Filters Polar Representation
Image
Demarcated Zones
Iris Imaging
Distance up to 1 meter

Near-infrared camera



Imaging Systems
http://www.iridiantech.com/
Imaging Systems
http://www.iridiantech.com/
Image Processing
John Daugman (1994)

Pupil detection: circular edge
detector




Segmenting sclera
}
c
c
0 0
0 0
, ,
, ,
2
) , (
) ( max
y x r
y x r
ds
r
y x I
r
r G
t
o
} }
+
=
+
=
e
c
c
8 /
8 /
] 10 , 5 . 1 [
) , (
2
max
0 0
t |
t | u
o
o
u u
to
d d I
r r
r
r
r r r
Rubbersheet Model
r
r
0 1

Each pixel (x,y) is mapped into

polar pair (r, ).

Circular band is divided into 8

subbands of equal thickness
for a given angle.

Subbands are sampled
uniformly in and in r.

Sampling = averaging over a
patch of pixels.

Encoding
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
2
2
0
2
2
0
0
) ( ) (
) ( 2 exp ) , (
b a
r r
i r G
u u
u u e t u
2-D Gabor filter in polar coordinates:
1
0
0
9 . 0
1
0
0
=
=
=
=
=
e
u
r
b
a
IrisCode Formation
Intensity is left out of consideration.
Only sign (phase) is of importance.
256 bytes
2,048 bits
Measure of Performance
Off-line and on-line modes of operation.
Hamming distance: standard measure for comparison of binary
strings.
k
n
k
k
y x
n
D =

=1
1
x and y are two IrisCodes

is the notation for exclusive OR (XOR)

Counts bits that disagree.

Observations
Two IrisCodes from the same
eye form genuine pair => genuine
Hamming distance.

Two IrisCodes from two
different eyes form imposter pair
=> imposter Hamming distance.

Bits in IrisCodes are correlated
(both for genuine pair and for
imposter pair).

The correlation between
IrisCodes from the same eye is
stronger.
Observations
The fact that this distribution
is uniform indicates that
different irises do not
systematically share any
common structure.

For example, if most irises
had a furrow or crypt in the
12-o'clock position, then the
plot shown here would not
be flat.

URL: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/independence.html
Degrees of Freedom
Imposter matching score:

- normalized histogram

- approximation curve

- Binomial with 249 degrees
of freedom

Interpretation: Given a
large number of imposter
pairs. The average number
of distinctive bits is equal to
249.
Histograms of Matching Scores
Decidability Index d-prime:

d-prime = 11.36

The cross-over point is
0.342

Compute FMR and FRR for
every threshold value.
Decision
Non-ideal conditions:
The same eye distributions depend strongly on the quality of imaging.
- motion blur
- focus
- noise
- pose variation
- illumination
Decision
Ideal conditions:
Imaging quality
determines how much the
same iris distribution
evolves and migrates
leftwards.
d-prime for ideal
imaging:

d-prime = 14.1

d-prime for non-ideal
imaging (previous slide):

d-prime = 7.3
Error Probabilities

HD Criterion Odds of False Accept Odds of False Reject
0.28
1 in
12
10
1 in 11,400
0.29
1 in
11
10
1 in 22,700
0.30 1 in 6.2 billion 1 in 46,000
0.31 1 in 665 million 1 in 95,000
0.32 1 in 81 million 1 in 201,000
0.33 1 in 11.1 million 1 in 433,000
0.34 1 in 1.7 million 1 in 950,000
0.342 Cross-over 1 in 1.2 million 1 in 1.2 million
0.35 1 in 295,000 1 in 2.12 million
0.36 1 in 57,000 1 in 4.83 million
0.37 1 in 12,300 1 in 11.3 million

Biometrics: Personal Identification in Networked Society, p. 115
False Accept Rate
FMR N FMR FAR
N
~ = ) 1 ( 1
For large database search:
- FMR is used in verification
- FAR is used in identification
) ( log 01 . 0 32 . 0
10
N HD
crit
=
Adaptive threshold: to keep FAR fixed:
Test Results
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/iristests.pdf
The results of tests
published in the
period from 1996 to
2003.
Be cautious about
reading these numbers:

The middle column
shows the number of
imposter pairs tested
(not the number of
individuals per dataset).
Performance Comparison
UK National Physical Laboratory test report, 2001.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/NPLsummary.gif
Cons
There are few legacy databases. Though iris may be a good
biometric for identification, large-scale deployment is impeded
by lack of installed base.

Since the iris is small, sampling the iris pattern requires much
user cooperation or complex, expensive input devices.

The performance of iris authentication may be impaired by
glasses, sunglasses, and contact lenses; subjects may have to
remove them.

The iris biometric, in general, is not left as evidence on the
scene of crime; no trace left.
Pros
Iris is currently claimed and perhaps widely believed to be the
most accurate biometric, especially when it comes to FA rates.
Iris has very few False Accepts (the important security aspect).

It maintains stability of characteristic over a lifetime.

Iris has received little negative press and may therefore be more
readily accepted. The fact that there is no criminal association
helps.

The dominant commercial vendors claim that iris does not
involve high training costs.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s982770.htm
Future of Iris
National Geographic: 1984 and 2002
Sharbat Gula
The remarkable story of Sharbat
Gula, first photographed in 1984
aged 12 in a refugee camp in
Pakistan by National Geographic
(NG) photographer Steve
McCurry, and traced 18 years
later to a remote part of
Afghanistan where she was
again photographed by McCurry.

So the NG turned to the inventor
of automatic iris recognition,
John Daugman at the University
of Cambridge.

The numbers Daugman got left
no question in his mind that the
eyes of the young Afghan
refugee and the eyes of the adult
Sharbat Gula belong to the
same person.

John Daugman and the Eyes of Sharbat Gula

References
1. J. Daugmans web site. URL: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/

2. J. Daugman, High Confidence Visual Recognition of Persons by a Test of Statistical
Independence, IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 15, no.
11, pp. 1148 1161, 1993.

3. J. Daugman, United States Patent No. 5,291,560 (issued on March 1994). Biometric
Personal Identification System Based on Iris Analysis, Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1994.

4. J. Daugman, The Importance of Being Random: Statistical Principles of Iris
Recognition, Pattern Recognition, vol. 36, no. 2, pp 279-291.

5. R. P. Wildes, Iris Recognition: An Emerging Biometric Technology, Proc. of the IEEE,
vol. 85, no. 9, 1997, pp. 1348-1363.