FACIAL SOFT BIOMETRICS - Library of Ph.D. Theses | EURASIP
FACIAL SOFT BIOMETRICS - Library of Ph.D. Theses | EURASIP FACIAL SOFT BIOMETRICS - Library of Ph.D. Theses | EURASIP
36 3. BAG OF FACIAL SOFT BIOMETRICS FOR HUMAN IDENTIFICATION120Expected value of F, for N=1,2,...,ρ, ρ = 20,50,100,12010080mean of F604020ρ=120ρ=100ρ=50ρ=2000 20 40 60 80 100 120NFigure 3.5: E v [F] for ρ = 20,50,100,120, n ∈ [3,4,...,ρ]. We note that for ρ sufficiently largerthan n, then E v [F] ≈ n.Theorem 1 In the described operational setting of interest, under the interference limited anduniformity assumptions, the probability of error averaged over all possible n-tuples v, that isprovided by an SBS endowed with ρ categories, is given byE v [P(err)] = 1−F n−F+1(ρ−F)!(n−F)!n ∑ . (3.24)n i n−ii=1 (n−i)!(ρ−i)!Proof of Theorem 1: The proof is direct from Lemma 2 and from (3.23).Related examples are plotted in Figure 3.6.□0.180.160.14Average P(err) for N=[3,4,...,ρ] ρ = 20,50,100,120ρ=120ρ=100ρ=50ρ=20average Prob of error0.120.10.080.060.040.0200 20 40 60 80 100 120NFigure 3.6: E v [P(err)] for ρ = 20,50,100,120, n ∈ [3,4,...,ρ].We proceed to explore scaling laws of SBS employed for human identification.3.5.3 Asymptotic bounds on subject interferenceIn this section we seek to gain insight on the role of increasing resources (increasing ρ) inreducing the subject interference experienced by an SBS. Specifically we seek to gain insighton the following practical question: if more funds are spent towards increasing the quality of
an SBS by increasing ρ, then what reliability gains do we expect to see? This question is onlypartially answered here, but some insight is provided in the form of bounds on the different subjectinterferencepatterns seen by an SBS. The asymptotic bounds simplify the hard to manipulateresults of Lemma 3 and Theorem 1, and provide insightful interpretations. A motivating exampleis presented before the result.Example 5 Consider an SBS operating in the city of Berlin, where for a specific n, this systemallows for a certain average reliability. Now the city of Berlin is ready to allocate further funds,which can be applied towards doubling the number of categories ρ that the system can identify.Such an increase can come about, for example, by increasing the number and quality of sensors,which can now better identify more soft-biometric traits. The natural question to ask is how thisextra funding will help to improve the system? The bounds, when tight, suggest that doubling ρ,will result in a doubly exponential reduction in the probability that a specific degree of interferencewill occur.Further clarifying examples that motivate this approach are given in Section 3.5.3.1.The following describes the result.Lemma 5 Letnh := limρ→∞ ρ , (3.25)define the relative throughput of a soft biometrics system, and let F := fn, 0 ≤ f ≤ 1. Then theasymptotic behavior of P(F) is bounded asProof of Lemma 5: See Appendix A.3.5.3.1 Interpretation of bounds1− lim logP(f) ≥ 2−h(1+f). (3.26)ρ→∞ ρlogρLemma 5 bounds the statistical behavior of P(F) in the high ρ regime (for large values ofρ). To gain intuition we compare two cases corresponding to two different relative-throughputregimes. In the first case we ask that n is close to ρ, corresponding to the highest relativethroughputof r = 1, and directly get from (3.26) that d(h,f) := 2 − h(1 + f) = d(1,f) =1 − f, 0 < f < 1. In the second case we reduce the relative-throughput to correspond to thecase where n is approximately half of ρ (h = 1/2), which in turn gives d(h,f) = d( 1 2 ,f) =32 − f 2 , 0 < f < 1/2. As expected d(1 2 ,f) > d(1,f), ∀f ≤ 1 2 .Towards gaining further insight, let us use this same example to shed some light on howLemma 5 succinctly quantifies the increase in the probability that a certain amount of interferencewill occur, for a given increase in the relative-throughput of the soft biometrics system. To seethis, consider the case where there is a deviation away from the typical f = h by some smallfixed ɛ, to a new f = h − ɛ, and note that the value of ɛ defines the extend of the interference 7 ,because a larger ɛ implies a smaller f, and thus a reduced F for the same n. In the high relativethroughputcase of our example, we have that f = h−ɛ = 1−ɛ, and thus that d(1,1 −ɛ) = ɛ,which implies that the probability of such deviation (and of the corresponding interference) is inthe order of ρ −ρd(1,1−ɛ) = ρ −ρɛ . On the other hand, in the lower relative-throughput case wheref = h−ɛ = 1 2 −ɛ, we have thatd(1 2 , 1 2 −ɛ) = 5 4 + ɛ 2, which implies that the probability of the samedeviation in the lower throughput setting is in the order of ρ −ρd(1 2 ,1 2 −ɛ) = ρ −ρ(5 4 +ɛ 2 ) 0.
- Page 1: FACIAL SOFT BIOMETRICSMETHODS, APPL
- Page 5: AcknowledgementsThis thesis would n
- Page 8: 6hair, skin and clothes. The propos
- Page 11 and 12: 97 Practical implementation of soft
- Page 13 and 14: 11Notations used in this workE : st
- Page 15 and 16: 13Chapter 1IntroductionTraditional
- Page 17 and 18: 15event of collision, which is of s
- Page 19 and 20: 17ric. In Section 6.6 we employ the
- Page 21 and 22: 19Chapter 2Soft biometrics: charact
- Page 23 and 24: 21is the fusion of soft biometrics
- Page 25 and 26: 23plied on low resolution grey scal
- Page 27 and 28: 25Chapter 3Bag of facial soft biome
- Page 29 and 30: 27In this setting we clearly assign
- Page 31 and 32: 29Table 3.1: SBSs with symmetric tr
- Page 33 and 34: 31corresponding to p(n,ρ). Towards
- Page 35 and 36: the same category (all subjects in
- Page 37: 3.5.2 Analysis of interference patt
- Page 41 and 42: 39Table 3.4: Example for a heuristi
- Page 43 and 44: 41for a given randomly chosen authe
- Page 45 and 46: 43Chapter 4Search pruning in video
- Page 47 and 48: 45Figure 4.1: System overview.SBS m
- Page 49 and 50: 472.52rate of decay of P(τ)1.510.5
- Page 51 and 52: 49to be the probability that the al
- Page 53 and 54: 51The following lemma describes the
- Page 55 and 56: 534.5.1 Typical behavior: average g
- Page 57 and 58: 55n = 50 subjects, out of which we
- Page 59 and 60: 5710.950.9pruning Gain r(vt)0.850.8
- Page 61 and 62: 59for one person, for trait t, t =
- Page 63 and 64: 61Chapter 5Frontal-to-side person r
- Page 65 and 66: 63Figure 5.1: Frontal / gallery and
- Page 67 and 68: 6510.90.80.7Skin colorHair colorShi
- Page 69 and 70: 6710.90.80.70.6Perr0.50.40.30.20.10
- Page 71 and 72: 69Chapter 6Soft biometrics for quan
- Page 73 and 74: 71raphy considerations include [BSS
- Page 75 and 76: 73Figure 6.3: Example image of the
- Page 77 and 78: 75A direct way to find a relationsh
- Page 79 and 80: 77- Pearson’s correlation coeffic
- Page 81 and 82: 79shown to have a high impact on ou
- Page 83 and 84: 81Chapter 7Practical implementation
- Page 85 and 86: 834) Eye glasses detection: Towards
- Page 87 and 88: 857.2 Eye color as a soft biometric
an SBS by increasing ρ, then what reliability gains do we expect to see? This question is onlypartially answered here, but some insight is provided in the form <strong>of</strong> bounds on the different subjectinterferencepatterns seen by an SBS. The asymptotic bounds simplify the hard to manipulateresults <strong>of</strong> Lemma 3 and Theorem 1, and provide insightful interpretations. A motivating exampleis presented before the result.Example 5 Consider an SBS operating in the city <strong>of</strong> Berlin, where for a specific n, this systemallows for a certain average reliability. Now the city <strong>of</strong> Berlin is ready to allocate further funds,which can be applied towards doubling the number <strong>of</strong> categories ρ that the system can identify.Such an increase can come about, for example, by increasing the number and quality <strong>of</strong> sensors,which can now better identify more s<strong>of</strong>t-biometric traits. The natural question to ask is how thisextra funding will help to improve the system? The bounds, when tight, suggest that doubling ρ,will result in a doubly exponential reduction in the probability that a specific degree <strong>of</strong> interferencewill occur.Further clarifying examples that motivate this approach are given in Section 3.5.3.1.The following describes the result.Lemma 5 Letnh := limρ→∞ ρ , (3.25)define the relative throughput <strong>of</strong> a s<strong>of</strong>t biometrics system, and let F := fn, 0 ≤ f ≤ 1. Then theasymptotic behavior <strong>of</strong> P(F) is bounded asPro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> Lemma 5: See Appendix A.3.5.3.1 Interpretation <strong>of</strong> bounds1− lim logP(f) ≥ 2−h(1+f). (3.26)ρ→∞ ρlogρLemma 5 bounds the statistical behavior <strong>of</strong> P(F) in the high ρ regime (for large values <strong>of</strong>ρ). To gain intuition we compare two cases corresponding to two different relative-throughputregimes. In the first case we ask that n is close to ρ, corresponding to the highest relativethroughput<strong>of</strong> r = 1, and directly get from (3.26) that d(h,f) := 2 − h(1 + f) = d(1,f) =1 − f, 0 < f < 1. In the second case we reduce the relative-throughput to correspond to thecase where n is approximately half <strong>of</strong> ρ (h = 1/2), which in turn gives d(h,f) = d( 1 2 ,f) =32 − f 2 , 0 < f < 1/2. As expected d(1 2 ,f) > d(1,f), ∀f ≤ 1 2 .Towards gaining further insight, let us use this same example to shed some light on howLemma 5 succinctly quantifies the increase in the probability that a certain amount <strong>of</strong> interferencewill occur, for a given increase in the relative-throughput <strong>of</strong> the s<strong>of</strong>t biometrics system. To seethis, consider the case where there is a deviation away from the typical f = h by some smallfixed ɛ, to a new f = h − ɛ, and note that the value <strong>of</strong> ɛ defines the extend <strong>of</strong> the interference 7 ,because a larger ɛ implies a smaller f, and thus a reduced F for the same n. In the high relativethroughputcase <strong>of</strong> our example, we have that f = h−ɛ = 1−ɛ, and thus that d(1,1 −ɛ) = ɛ,which implies that the probability <strong>of</strong> such deviation (and <strong>of</strong> the corresponding interference) is inthe order <strong>of</strong> ρ −ρd(1,1−ɛ) = ρ −ρɛ . On the other hand, in the lower relative-throughput case wheref = h−ɛ = 1 2 −ɛ, we have thatd(1 2 , 1 2 −ɛ) = 5 4 + ɛ 2, which implies that the probability <strong>of</strong> the samedeviation in the lower throughput setting is in the order <strong>of</strong> ρ −ρd(1 2 ,1 2 −ɛ) = ρ −ρ(5 4 +ɛ 2 ) 0.