DOKK Library
MATEC Web of Conferences 336, 06008 (2021)                            https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133606008
CSCNS2020




      Forensic face recognition based on KDE and
      evidence theory
      Wen Xiao1, *
      1JiangXi   Police College, NanChang, JiangXi, China


                    Abstract. Forensic face recognition (FFR) has been studied in recent years
                    in forensic science. Given an automatic face recognition system, output
                    scores of the system are used to describe the similarity of face image pairs,
                    but not suitable for forensics. In this study, a score-mapping model based on
                    kernel density estimation (KDE) and evidence theory is proposed. First,
                    KDE was used to generate probability density function (PDF) for each
                    dimensional feature vector of face image pairs. Then, the PDFs could be
                    utilized to determine separately the basic probability assignment (BPA) of
                    supporting the prosecution hypothesis and the defence hypothesis. Finally,
                    the BPAs of each feature were combined by Dempster’s rule to get the final
                    BPA, which reflects the strength of evidence support. The experimental
                    results demonstrate that compared with the classic KDE-based likelihood
                    ratio method, the proposed method has a better performance in terms of
                    accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.



      1 Introduction
          In the context of forensic science, face recognition approaches have fallen into two main
      categories: Subjective-based and objective-based methods. The subjective-based methods are
      the traditional forensic means in the past few decades, and face biometric features have been
      commonly used to inspect and compare static images for such methods [1,2]. Mainly four
      subjective-based methods can be used during the analysis and comparison phase [1]: Holistic
      Comparison, Morphological Analysis, Photo-anthropometry, and Superimposition. Facial
      Identification Scientific Working Group (FISWG) recommends morphological analysis by
      trained examiners as the primary method of comparison [3]. Moreover, in recent years, soft
      Biometrics, such as gender, age, race, skin colour, spots and other characteristics, have been
      considered into face recognition procedure so as to improve recognition results [4,5]. But
      these methods need to be manually carried out by forensic experts, so they heavily depend
      on the experience and knowledge of the forensic experts. On the other hand, the objective-
      based methods attempt to identify faces using automatic face recognition [6-10]. Using
      automatic recognition system to verify faces can not only improve the efficiency of forensic
      work, but also promote the standardization of the forensic process. In commercial face
      recognition systems, the similarity or distance between two faces is usually reported in terms
      of one or several score values, which is so called “Score-based procedures” [11]. In order to


      *
          Corresponding author: shauven@126.com


© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
MATEC Web of Conferences 336, 06008 (2021)                 https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133606008
CSCNS2020

     take the differences and typicality of the population into account and allow for comparisons
     between facial scores from different face recognition systems, there is necessary to convert
     the score to Likelihood Ratio (LR) value [12]. Some organizations such as the European
     Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI), report the certainty of the statement
     match/nonmatch via a quantifiable amount, that is, verify whether it is the same
     person/different person or not [13]. To that end, ENFSI enforces the use of a LR value to
     evaluate the strength of evidence as the degree of supporting the appraisal conclusion, namely,
     it can be regarded as the mensurable method to express the confidence in the match/nonmatch
     decision [10]. A suitable approach to achieve this is to append such a score-to-LR mapping
     in a post-processing step to an existing score-producing facial recognition system [14]. Once
     a model for score-to-LR mapping has been set up, the strength of evidences can be obtained
     by plugging the scores into the model.


     2 Evidence evaluation and evidence theory
     Evidence evaluation has been proposed in recent years as a logical and appropriate way to
     report evidence to a court of law using a Bayesian probabilistic framework. LR is based on
     Bayes’ rule, it is defined as the ratio of the probabilities of two hypotheses [15]: the null
     hypothesis of the prosecution (Hp), and the alternative hypothesis of the defense (Hd). The
     hypothesis of the prosecution Hp means that the evidences are from the same source, and the
     hypothesis of the defense Hd means that the evidences are from the different source. Then
     LR is obtained from two conditional probabilities, that is, the conditional probability of the
     prosecution hypothesis divided by the conditional probability of the defense hypothesis. So,
     the LR is defined as follow:
                                                                          Pr�𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸|𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 �
                                       𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿�𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 , 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 , 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸� =                       (1)
                                                                          Pr(𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸|𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 )
         In order to express the strength of evidence support, especially for convenient to
     communicate evidence values in the courtroom, it would be useful to translate the numerical
     expression to a verbal counterpart. One of the current frameworks to relate verbal and
     numerical likelihood ratios is defined as follows [16]:
                              Table 1. Relation of verbal and numerical LR.

                                  LR range         Evidence to support Hp
                                     1-2                  no assistance
                                    2-10            slightly more probable
                                   10-100                more probable
                                 100-10,000          much more probable
                              10,000 -1,000,000        far more probable
                                >1,000,0000       exceedingly more probable


     2.1 Score-to-LR conversion model
     When an automated system is used to calculate the similarity or the distance between the two
     faces to be compared, it returns a score. This score itself has no forensic relevance and needs
     to be converted to LR.
         Four score-to-LR conversion models have been proposed [17]: Kernel Density Estimation
     (KDE), Linear Logistic Regression (LLR), Histogram Binning and Pool Adjacent Violators
     (PAV), where KDE is a commonly used method which is easy to explain. In KDE, a kernel
     distribution is a non-parametric representation of the probability density function (PDF) of a


                                                   2
MATEC Web of Conferences 336, 06008 (2021)                                                       https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133606008
CSCNS2020

     random variable. It is used when a parameter distribution cannot properly describe the data,
     or to avoid making assumptions about the data distribution. A kernel distribution is defined
     by a smoothing function and a bandwidth value h, which controls the smoothness of the
     resulting density curve. In other words, it is a technique that lets you create a smooth curve
     given a set of data. It is given by the following equation:
                                                         𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛                           𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
                                                    1                               1            𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 − 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
                          𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 (𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥; ℎ, 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾) = � 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾ℎ (𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 − 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ) =       � 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 �                 � (2)
                                                    𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛                          𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛ℎ               ℎ
                                                       𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=1                                        𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖=1
     where K is the kernel and h is the bandwidth. The kernel smoothing function K defines the
     shape of the curve used to generate the probability distribution function, and the bandwidth
     h steers the smoothness of the resulting approximation. Gaussian distribution is usually used
     as kernel function, and the bandwidth could be adaptively generated from the sample data.
     Unlike a histogram, which places the values into discrete bins, a kernel distribution sums the
     component smoothing functions for each data value to produce a smooth, continuous
     probability curve.
         Use the kernel function to estimate the data from the same source (the prosecution
     hypothesis Hp) and the data from different sources (the prosecution hypothesis Hd)
     respectively, LR is calculated with the following:
                                                    Pr�𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠�𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 � 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠; ℎ, 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘)
                                   𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿(𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠) =                   =                         (3)
                                                    Pr(𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠|𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ) 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠; ℎ, 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘)

     2.2 Evidence theory
     Evidence theory is the generalization of probability theory [18,19], which can handle
     uncertainty, impreciseness, and unknown information and fuse multi-source information
     without depending on prior information.
         A set of finite mutually exclusive hypotheses or propositions Ω is called the frame of
     discernment, and the Basic Probability Assignment (BPA) function under the frame of
     discernment is a function 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚: 2Ω ↦ [0,1], and satisfies with ∑𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴⊆Ω 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) = 1 and 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(Φ) = 0.
     The BPA m is also called the mass function, and 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) expresses the proportion of all
     relevant and available evidence that supports the claim that a particular element of 2Ω belongs
     to the set A but to no particular subset of A. Suppose H1 and H2 are two independent evidence
     with two mass functions m1 and m2 in the same frame of discernment Ω; the Dempster’s rule
     of combination is defined as follow:
                                       𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1 ⨁ 2 (𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) = 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 −1 ∙         � 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1 (𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 �𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 �                     (4)
                                                                      𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∩𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 =𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
     where, 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 = ∑𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ∩𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 ≠Φ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1 (𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 �𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 � is referred to as the degree of conflict between the two
     BPAs. If K is close to 0, the Dempster’s rule of combination becomes invalid. One of the
     methods to solve this problem is to set discount coefficient, which usually represents the
     unreliability or dependence of the evidences. If m is a BPA and (1-α) is its corresponding
     discount coefficient, then the BPA after discounting is:
                                                                            𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼 ⋅ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴)           𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≠ Ω
                                                 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼 (𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) = �                                                              (5)
                                                                            𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼 ⋅ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(Ω) + (1 − 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼) 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = Ω


     3 Proposed method
     Recently, a new non-parametric method based on KDE has been proposed to determine BPA
     [20,21]. Inspire by the idea, a score-mapping method for forensic is presented in this paper,
     in which KDE and evidence theory are used to determine the confidence of whether two face



                                                                           3
MATEC Web of Conferences 336, 06008 (2021)                             https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133606008
CSCNS2020

     image pairs to compare are from the same source or from the difference source. The flowchart
     of the proposed score-mapping method, named KDE-DS, is shown as figure 1.
                      Np pairs                                      Compute
                      from the                     128 dim          KDE per
                        same                       vectors            dim
       Reference       source
       Database        Nd pairs    Automatic                        Compute
                       from the       Face         128 dim          KDE per
                      difference   Recognition     vectors            dim
                        source       System
                                                                                             BPA1
                      Test face                                                              BPA2       DS       Output
                      images to                    128 dim                    score ratio
                                                                                              …      Combina-
                       compare                     vectors                     compute
                                                                 Plug-in                      …      tion rule
                                                                                            BPA128


     Fig. 1. The flowchart of the proposed score-mapping method.
         The steps are described as follows:
         Step 1: First, the reference database can be divided into two parts. One is training sample
     which constructs the model of each feature with its PDF curves. Another one is test sample
     which is used to verify the constructed model. Each sample includes two types of images:
     face-pairs from the same source and face-pairs from the difference sources.
         Step 2: Automatic face recognition system is used to generate n-dimensional feature
     vectors (e.g. 128-dim). For each dimensional feature, the similarity/distances of all image
     pair are calculated and probability density function is generated using those
     similarity/distances via KDE, which can be regarded as the probability model for the related
     feature using the training sample.
         Step 3: If there are new face image pairs that need to be compared (which could be regard
     as evidence in a case), the automatic face recognition system is also utilized to generate n-
     dimensional feature vectors, then the value of each dimensional feature would be plugged in
     the corresponding PDFs. Thus, we obtain two values k1 and k2, one for the prosecution
     hypothesis Hp and another for the defense hypothesis Hd, as shown in Figure 2.




     Fig. 2. Generate two pdfs for each feature.
             Given a hypothesis H0, the probability of H0 for each PDF model is proportional to the
     specific intersection point value f(x0) [20]. According to this, a frame of discernment Ω =
     �𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 , 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 � could be constructed, and the rules about how a membership is assigned to the focal
     element are as follows:
                                                                                      𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘1
                                                    𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚��𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 �� = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐1 =
                                                                                𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘1 + 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘2
                                                                                                            (6)
                                                                                      𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘2
                                                    𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚({𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 }) = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 =
                                                                                𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘1 + 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘2



                                                             4
MATEC Web of Conferences 336, 06008 (2021)                          https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133606008
CSCNS2020

         Consider that the features of images may not be completely independent of each other,
     and the source may also be unreliable, the discount efficient is considered to reflect such
     effects.
                                             𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚��𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 �� = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼 ∙ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐1
                                             𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚({𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 }) = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼 ∙ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2                (7)
                                         𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚��𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 , 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 �� = 1 − 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼
         Generally, (1-α) could be set to 0.3.
         Step 4: Finally, Dempster’s combination rule is used to combine multiple BPAs to get the
     final BPA, and the mass function m({Hp}) reflects the strength of evidence support of the
     prosecution.


     4 Experimental results
     To Verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, the LFW (Labeled Faces in the Wild)
     face database is used, which is a popular test set for face recognition [22]. The face images
     provided are all from natural scenes in life, so the difficulty of recognition will increase. Here
     we select 1100 pairs of same person and different person respectively as training set, and 500
     pairs of same person and different person respectively as test set. After the aligning images
     step, the available numbers of image-pairs are shown as Table 2.
                                      Table 2. Numbers of face image pairs.

                                                  Same source Difference source
                                   Training set       1090                1087
                                     Test set         495                 495
        In forensics, transparency in the methods is essential [10]. Since Openface is an easily
     available open-source toolkit, which based on the FaceNet algorithm for automatic facial
     identification that was created by Google [23], it is used in the experiment, and we utilize the
     commonly known matching indexes of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, defined as:
                                                                                     𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
                                            𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =                                    (8)
                                                                                               𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
                                                                                                 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
                                       𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =                         (9)
                                                                                         𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
                                                                                                 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
                                       𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =                        (10)
                                                                                         𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇

         With N denoting the number of scores, TP the number of True Positives, TN the number
     of True Negatives, FN the number of False Negatives, and FP the number of False Positives.
     When calculating the accuracy, we first convert the LR values to a grade according to the
     conclusion scale in Table 2. A LR value counts as a match prediction if it receives a grade
     +2 or higher, and as a no-match prediction if it receives a grade +0.5 or lower. Similarly, if
     the ratio of the final BPA supporting the Hp to supporting the Hd is greater than 2, which
     counts as a match prediction, vice versa. The comparative experimental results are shown as
     Table 3:
                                          Table 3. Experimental results.
                                                Accuracy    Sensitivity    Specificity
                                  KDE            91.01%      90.71%         91.31%
                                 KDE-DS          93.84%      94.14%         93.54%
        From the experimental results, the proposed method has a better performance in terms of
     accuracy, sensitivity and specificity than the classic KDE-based likelihood ratio method.


                                                             5
MATEC Web of Conferences 336, 06008 (2021)                  https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133606008
CSCNS2020

     After analysis, the main cause of the error is that multiple face images are extracted
     incorrectly, or there is a face occluded image in the face image pair, such as wearing glasses,
     so we should assure that before using automatic face recognition system for face verification,
     the face image pairs to compare should be carefully checked.


     5 Conclusions
     The KDE method is a common method for likelihood ratio calculation in the field of face
     forensics, which utilizes the similarity/distance of face image pairs to generate PDF. N-
     dimensional feature vectors are integrated into a distance measure, which lose some local
     information. In this study, each dimensional feature is treated as a random variable, and the
     distances of each feature between image-pairs are accumulated as PDF via KDE, then the
     PDFs can be mapped in BPA of the prosecution and the defense, finally the BPAs are
     combined by Dempster’s combination rule. The experiments are verified that the proposed
     method has a better performance than KDE method. It would be a powerful supplement to
     traditional likelihood ratio calculation method.

     This research was financially supported by Science and Technology Research Project of Jiangxi
     Provincial Department of Education (NO. GJJ151196) and Collaborative Innovation Center for
     Economics crime investigation and prevention technology, Jiangxi Province (No. JXJZXTCX-019).


     References
     1.   C. G. Zeinstra, D. Meuwly, A. C. Ruifro, R. N. Veldhuis, L. J. Spreeuwers, Forensic
          face recognition as a means to determine strength of evidence: a survey. Forensic Sci
          Rev, 30, 1, 21-32 (2018).
     2.   P. Tome, J. Fierrez, R. Vera‐Rodriguez, J. Ortega‐Garcia, Combination of face
          regions in forensic scenarios. Journal of forensic sciences, 60, 4, 1046-1051 (2015).
     3.   Facial Identification Scientific Working Group: Facial comparison overview and
          methodology guidelines,
          https://fiswg.org/fiswg_facial_comparison_overview_and_methodology_guidelines_V
          1.0_20191025.pdf.
     4.   M. S. Nixon, P. L. Correia, K. Nasrollahi, T. B. Moeslund, A. Hadid, M. Tistarelli, On
          soft biometrics. Pattern Recognition Letters, 68, 218-230 (2015).
     5.   P. Tome, R. Vera-Rodriguez, J. Fierrez, J. Ortega-Garcia, Facial soft biometric features
          for forensic face recognition. Forensic science international, 257, 271-284 (2015).
     6.   M. Jacquet, C. Champod, Automated face recognition in forensic science: Review and
          perspectives. Forensic Science International, 307, 110124 (2020).
     7.   A. L. Mölder, I. E. Åström, E. Leitet, Development of a score-to-likelihood ratio model
          for facial recognition using authentic criminalistic data. In 2020 8th International
          Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF), IEEE, 1-6 (2020).
     8.   D. Meuwly, D. Ramos, R. Haraksim, A guideline for the validation of likelihood ratio
          methods used for forensic evidence evaluation. Forensic science international, 276, 142-
          153 (2017).
     9.   N. Suki, N. Poh, F. M. Senan, N. A. Zamani, M. Z. A. Darus, On the reproducibility and
          repeatability of likelihood ratio in forensics: A case study using face biometrics. In 2016
          IEEE 8th International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Applications and Systems
          (BTAS), 1-8 (2016).



                                                    6
MATEC Web of Conferences 336, 06008 (2021)               https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133606008
CSCNS2020

     10. A. Macarulla Rodriguez, Z. Geradts, M. Worring, Likelihood Ratios for Deep Neural
         Networks in Face Comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65, 4, 1169-1183 (2020).
     11. G. S. Morrison, E. Enzinger, Score based procedures for the calculation of forensic
         likelihood ratios–Scores should take account of both similarity and typicality. Science
         & Justice, 58, 1, 47-58 (2018).
     12. N. Garton, D. Ommen, J. Niemi, A. Carriquiry, Score-based likelihood ratios to evaluate
         forensic pattern evidence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.09470, 1-22 (2020).
     13. L. McKenna, S. McDermott, G. O’Donell, ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative Reporting in
         Forensic Science: Strengthening the evaluation of forensic results across Europe
         (STEOFRAE). Wiesbaden, Germany: European Network of Forensic Science Institutes,
         30–41 (2015).
     14. T. Ali, L. Spreeuwers, R. Veldhuis, D. Meuwly, Effect of calibration data on forensic
         likelihood ratio from a face recognition system. In 2013 IEEE Sixth International
         Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), 1-8 (2013).
     15. D. Ramos, R. P. Krish, J. Fierrez, D. Meuwly, From biometric scores to forensic
         likelihood ratios. In Handbook of biometrics for forensic science, Springer, Cham, 305-
         327, (2017).
     16. F. S. Kool, Feature-based models for forensic likelihood ratio calculation: Supporting
         research for the ENFSI-LR project, (2016).
     17. T. Ali, Biometric Score Calibration for Forensic Face Recognition. Ph.D. Thesis Series,
         Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, 14–336 (2014).
     18. A. Dempster, Upper and lower probabilities induced by multivalued mapping. Annals of
         Mathematical Statistics, 38, 2, 325-339 (1967).
     19. G. Shafer, A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, 1976.
     20. P. Xu, X. Su, S. Mahadevan, C. Li, Y. Deng, A non-parametric method to determine
         basic probability assignment for classification problems. Applied intelligence, 41, 3,
         681-693 (2014).
     21. B. Qin, F. Xiao, A non-parametric method to determine basic probability assignment
         based on kernel density estimation. IEEE Access, 6: 73509-73519 (2018).
     22. G. B. Huang, M. Mattar, T. Berg, E. Learned-Miller, Labeled faces in the wild: A
         database for studying face recognition in unconstrained environments. University of
         Massachusetts, Amherst, Technical Report, 07-49 (2007).
     23. A. Fydanaki, Z. Geradts, Evaluating OpenFace: an open-source automatic facial
         comparison algorithm for forensics. Forensic sciences research, 3, 3, 202-209 (2018).




                                                  7


Forensic face recognition based on KDE and evidence theory

Authors Wen Xiao

License CC-BY-4.0