Cargando…

Likelihood Ratios for Deep Neural Networks in Face Comparison

In this study, we aim to compare the performance of systems and forensic facial comparison experts in terms of likelihood ratio computation to assess the potential of the machine to support the human expert in the courtroom. In forensics, transparency in the methods is essential. Consequently, state...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Macarulla Rodriguez, Andrea, Geradts, Zeno, Worring, Marcel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7383913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32396227
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14324
_version_ 1783563517989748736
author Macarulla Rodriguez, Andrea
Geradts, Zeno
Worring, Marcel
author_facet Macarulla Rodriguez, Andrea
Geradts, Zeno
Worring, Marcel
author_sort Macarulla Rodriguez, Andrea
collection PubMed
description In this study, we aim to compare the performance of systems and forensic facial comparison experts in terms of likelihood ratio computation to assess the potential of the machine to support the human expert in the courtroom. In forensics, transparency in the methods is essential. Consequently, state‐of‐the‐art free software was preferred over commercial software. Three different open‐source automated systems chosen for their availability and clarity were as follows: OpenFace, SeetaFace, and FaceNet; all three based on convolutional neural networks that return a distance (OpenFace, FaceNet) or similarity (SeetaFace). The returned distance or similarity is converted to a likelihood ratio using three different distribution fits: parametric fit Weibull distribution, nonparametric fit kernel density estimation, and isotonic regression with pool adjacent violators algorithm. The results show that with low‐quality frontal images, automated systems have better performance to detect nonmatches than investigators: 100% of precision and specificity in confusion matrix against 89% and 86% obtained by investigators, but with good quality images forensic experts have better results. The rank correlation between investigators and software is around 80%. We conclude that the software can assist in reporting officers as it can do faster and more reliable comparisons with full‐frontal images, which can help the forensic expert in casework.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7383913
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73839132020-07-27 Likelihood Ratios for Deep Neural Networks in Face Comparison Macarulla Rodriguez, Andrea Geradts, Zeno Worring, Marcel J Forensic Sci Digital & Multimedia Sciences In this study, we aim to compare the performance of systems and forensic facial comparison experts in terms of likelihood ratio computation to assess the potential of the machine to support the human expert in the courtroom. In forensics, transparency in the methods is essential. Consequently, state‐of‐the‐art free software was preferred over commercial software. Three different open‐source automated systems chosen for their availability and clarity were as follows: OpenFace, SeetaFace, and FaceNet; all three based on convolutional neural networks that return a distance (OpenFace, FaceNet) or similarity (SeetaFace). The returned distance or similarity is converted to a likelihood ratio using three different distribution fits: parametric fit Weibull distribution, nonparametric fit kernel density estimation, and isotonic regression with pool adjacent violators algorithm. The results show that with low‐quality frontal images, automated systems have better performance to detect nonmatches than investigators: 100% of precision and specificity in confusion matrix against 89% and 86% obtained by investigators, but with good quality images forensic experts have better results. The rank correlation between investigators and software is around 80%. We conclude that the software can assist in reporting officers as it can do faster and more reliable comparisons with full‐frontal images, which can help the forensic expert in casework. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-05-12 2020-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7383913/ /pubmed/32396227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14324 Text en © 2020 Netherlands Forensic Institute/University of Amsterdam. Journal of Forensic Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Academy of Forensic Sciences This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Digital & Multimedia Sciences
Macarulla Rodriguez, Andrea
Geradts, Zeno
Worring, Marcel
Likelihood Ratios for Deep Neural Networks in Face Comparison
title Likelihood Ratios for Deep Neural Networks in Face Comparison
title_full Likelihood Ratios for Deep Neural Networks in Face Comparison
title_fullStr Likelihood Ratios for Deep Neural Networks in Face Comparison
title_full_unstemmed Likelihood Ratios for Deep Neural Networks in Face Comparison
title_short Likelihood Ratios for Deep Neural Networks in Face Comparison
title_sort likelihood ratios for deep neural networks in face comparison
topic Digital & Multimedia Sciences
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7383913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32396227
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14324
work_keys_str_mv AT macarullarodriguezandrea likelihoodratiosfordeepneuralnetworksinfacecomparison
AT geradtszeno likelihoodratiosfordeepneuralnetworksinfacecomparison
AT worringmarcel likelihoodratiosfordeepneuralnetworksinfacecomparison