13.07.2015 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

51The following lemma describes the asymptotic behavior <strong>of</strong> P(α,τ), for any α ∈ V(τ). Toclarify, the lemma describes the asymptotic rate <strong>of</strong> decay <strong>of</strong> the joint probability <strong>of</strong> an authenticationgroup with histogram α 0 and an estimation/categorization process corresponding to α 1 ,given that the group and categorization process result in an unpruned set <strong>of</strong> size|S| = τ n ρ(4.18)for some 0 ≤ τ ≤ ρ. This behavior will be described below as a concise function <strong>of</strong> the binomialrate-function (see [CT06])The lemma follows.I f (x) ={xlog(xɛ f)+(1−x)log( 1−x1−ɛ f) f ≥ 2xlog( x1−ɛ 1)+(1−x)log( 1−xɛ 1) f = 1.(4.19)Lemma 6wherelog− limN→∞ n/ρ P(α,τ) = ρD(α 0||p)+D(α 0 ||p) = ∑ fρ∑f=1α 0,f log α 0,fp fα 0,f I f(α 1,fα 0,f),is the informational divergence between α 0 and p (see [CT06]).The pro<strong>of</strong> follows soon after. We now proceed with the main result, which averages the outcomein Lemma 6, over all possible authentication groups.Theorem 2 In SBS-based pruning, the size <strong>of</strong> the remaining set |S|, satisfies the following:logρ∑J(τ) := − limN→∞ n/ρ P(|S| ≈ τn ρ ) = inf ρ α 0,f log α 0,f+α∈V p fFurthermore we have the following.f=1ρ∑f=1α 0,f I f(α 1,fα 0,f). (4.20)Theorem 3 The probability that after pruning, the search space is bigger (resp. smaller) thanτ n ρ , is given for τ ≥ τ 0 byand for τ < τ 0log− limN→∞ n/ρ P(|S| > τn ) = J(τ) (4.21)ρlog− limN→∞ n/ρ P(|S| < τn ) = J(τ). (4.22)ρThe above describe how <strong>of</strong>ten we encounter authentication groupsvand feature estimation behaviorthat jointly cause the gain to deviate, by a specific degree, from the common behavior describedin (4.11), i.e., how <strong>of</strong>ten the pruning is atypically ineffective or atypically effective. We <strong>of</strong>fer theintuition that the atypical behavior <strong>of</strong> the pruning gain is dominated by a small set <strong>of</strong> authenticationgroups, that minimize the expression in Theorem 2. Such minimization was presented inFig. 4.3, and in examples that will follow after the pro<strong>of</strong>s.Please see the Annex B for the pro<strong>of</strong>s.The following examples are meant to provide insight on the statistical behavior <strong>of</strong> pruning.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!