Beyond Mortality: Advancements in Post-Mortem Iris Recognition through Data Collection and Computer-Aided Forensic Examination
Authors: Rasel Ahmed Bhuiyan, Parisa Farmanifard, Renu Sharma, Andrey Kuehlkamp, Aidan Boyd, Patrick J Flynn, Kevin W Bowyer, Arun Ross, Dennis Chute, Adam Czajka
Organizations: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA. · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. · Meta, New York, NY 10003, USA. · Dutchess County Medical Examiner’s Office, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, USA.
Post-mortem iris recognition brings both hope to the forensic community (a short-term but accurate and fast means of verifying identity) as well as concerns to society (its potential illicit use in post-mortem impersonation). These hopes and concerns have grown along with the volume of research in post-mortem iris recognition. Barriers to further progress in post-mortem iris recognition include the difficult nature of data collection, and the resulting small number of approaches designed specifically for comparing iris images of deceased subjects. This paper makes several unique contributions to mitigate these barriers. First, we have collected and we offer a new dataset of NIR (compliant with ISO/IEC 19794-6 where possible) and visible-light iris images collected after demise from 259 subjects, with the largest PMI (post-mortem interval) being 1,674 hours. For one subject, the data has been collected before and after death, the first such case ever published. Second, the collected dataset was combined with publicly-available post-mortem samples to assess the current state of the art in automatic forensic iris recognition with five iris recognition methods and data originating from 338 deceased subjects. These experiments include analyses of how selected demographic factors influence recognition performance. Thirdly, this study implements a model for detecting post-mortem iris images, which can be considered as presentation attacks. Finally, we offer an open-source forensic tool integrating three post-mortem iris recognition methods with explainability elements added to make the comparison process more human-interpretable.
Figures & tables
Dataset name
Number
Number
Number of cases
Sensors used
Min → Max
Metadata
of subjects
of images
with ante-
PMI
(eyes)
(NIR / RGB)
and post-mortem
(hours)
image pairs
Warsaw-BioBase-Post-Mortem-Iris
17 (34)
574 / 626
0
IriShield M2120U
5 → 814
For all:
v1.0 [ 10 ]
Olympus TG-3
PMI
Warsaw-BioBase-Post-Mortem-Iris
20 (40)
1,094 / 1,023
0
IriShield M2120U
7 → 453
gender
TABLE I: Main novel characteristics of the newly-collected NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 post-mortem iris dataset compared with all existing publicly-available research datasets.
Fig. 1: Number of images as a function of subject’s age in the NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 dataset.
Fig. 2: Number of images as a function of the PMI in the NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 dataset.
Fig. 3: Number of samples for each subject in all acquisition sessions in the NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 dataset, shown separately for the left and right eyes.
Fig. 4: Visualization of the progression of post-mortem deformations in time for the case with the longest PMI (1,674 hours) in the NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 dataset. Corresponding pictures in lower rows illustrate the iris segmentation results. Numbers below pictures indicate the PMI for a given sample.
Age (years)
Gender
1-33
34-66
67-99
Male
Female
Total Subjects
37
210
81
238
91
Impostor Pairs
8,450
257,319
29,443
455,486
52,691
Genuine Pairs
35,88
29,198
8,743
57,687
21,208
Average PMI
50.7
50.7
50.7
85.3
85.3
Average Age
26.15
53.53
75.56
55.8
57.7
TABLE II: Data statistics after balancing along the subject age and gender dimensions.
Fig. 5: The comparison score distributions for the combined NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 + Warsaw NIR datasets , obtained for five different iris matching algorithms. The main performance metrics (d’, Failure to Match, Equal Error Rate and Area Under ROC curve) are also shown, and results are split by the PMI range : 0-24h (top row), 0-72h (second row), 0-240h (third row), and all PMIs combined (bottom row).
Fig. 6: Same as in Fig. 5 in the main paper (the comparison score distributions obtained for five different iris matching algorithms) except that only scored obtained for NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 NIR samples are shown, and results are split by the PMI range : 0-24h (top row), 0-72h (second row), 0-240h (third row), and all PMIs combined (bottom row).
Fig. 7: Same as in Fig. 5 in the main paper (the comparison score distributions obtained for five different iris matching algorithms) except that only scored obtained for Warsaw NIR samples are shown, and results are split by the PMI range : up to 24h (top row), up to 72h (second row), up to 240h (third row), and all PMIs combined (bottom row).
Fig. 8: The comparison score distributionss for the combined NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 + Warsaw RGB datasets , obtained for five different iris matchers.
Fig. 9: The comparison score distributions for the combined NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 + Warsaw datasets obtained in a cross-wavelength experiment.
Fig. 10: The comparison score distributions for the ante-mortem vs post-mortem samples , obtained for five different iris matchers.
Fig. 11: The comparison score distributions for the combined NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 and Warsaw datasets , obtained for five different iris matching algorithms, and split by gender : results for male and female subjects are shown in the top and bottom rows, respectively.
ANOVA
Kruskal-Wallis
Method
Statistics
p -value
Statistics
p -value
HDBIF
462.66
2.52e-29
44.26
2.87e-11
USIT
4005.54
3.18e-55
44.26
2.87e-11
OSIRIS
10.48
0.0019
8.83
0.0029
DGR
214.83
3.68e-21
44.26
2.87e-11
VeriEye
22.49
1.41e-05
18.50
1.69e-05
TABLE III: Statistical hypothesis test results for male vs female average d-prime values.
Fig. 12: The comparison score distributions for the combined NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 and Warsaw datasets , obtained for five different iris matching algorithms and shown separately for each subject’s age group in the rows, from top to bottom: 1-33 years old, 34-66 years old and 67-99 years old.
ANOVA
Kruskal-Wallis
Method
Statistics
p -value
Statistics
p -value
HDBIF
346.09
3.82e-42
65.44
6.14e-15
USIT
316.21
1.23e-40
68.42
1.38e-15
OSIRIS
1762.93
4.00e-71
79.12
6.59e-18
DGR
1219.85
2.27e-64
79.12
6.59e-18
VeriEye
170.92
7.30e-31
68.83
1.13e-15
TABLE IV: Statistical hypothesis test results for average d-prime values across three age groups.
Fig. 13: The presentation attack detection score distributions obtained for all eight post-mortem detection experiments described in Section V-C . Experiments 1 & 2: Pre-trained model tested on Warsaw and NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 without fine-tuning; Experiments 3 & 4: Fine-tuned model tested cross-dataset (Warsaw and NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215); Experiments 5 & 6: Model fine-tuned with 50 samples and tested cross-dataset (Warsaw and NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215); Experiments 7 & 8: Model fine-tuned with 5 samples and tested cross-dataset (Warsaw and NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215) .
Exp.
1-BPCER @ 0.01%
1-BPCER @ 1%
3
98.29%
98.29%
4
95.29%
95.29%
5
90.89%
93.00%
6
83.74%
95.03%
7
43.04%
52.22%
8
41.84%
49.78%
TABLE V: True detection rate (1-BPCER) at APCER of 0.01% and 1% for Experiments 3 to 8 using D-NetPAD. BPCER stands for Bona fide Presentation Classification Error Rate, and APCER stands for Attack Presentation Classification Error Rate [ 51 ] .
Dataset
Min PMI(h)
PA (Min)
Max PMI(h)
PA (Max)
Warsaw
5.0
0.3046
814.0
0.4247
NIJ
1.0
0.6770
1674.0
0.7583
TABLE VI: Minimum and maximum PMI and the corresponding presentation attack (PA) scores for each dataset in Experiments 3 and 4.
Fig. 14: Post-mortem iris images that were misclassified as live by the D-NetPAD model. The top row shows samples from Experiment 4 (tested on Warsaw), and the bottom row shows samples from Experiment 3 (tested on NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215).
Fig. 15: Four screens of the PMExpert tool illustrating how the forensic experts can evaluate matching results using different post mortem-specific iris recognition methods along with their visual explanations (from left to right: TLPIM, HDBIF and PBM methods), as well as get the ISO metrics for each image (the upmost right screen).
Figure 22Figure 23
Renu Sharma completed her PhD in the Computer Science and Engineering Department at Michigan State University (MSU) in 2022. Currently, she is with Amazon as Applied Scientist. Renu also has 8 years of experience in Research & Development at CDAC Mumbai, India.
Fig. 16: ISO/IEC 29794-6 quality metrics density heatmaps split by gender and type of comparison (genuine and impostor) for the combined NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 and Warsaw datasets.
Fig. 17: ISO/IEC 29794-6 quality metrics density heatmaps for three age groups, and split by the type of comparison (genuine and impostor) for the combined NIJ-2018-DU-BX-0215 and Warsaw datasets.
NIST Iris Exchange (IREX) offers an appealing solution to evaluating new open-source iris recognition algorithms, but it presents high barriers to entry because these algorithms must be written in C++, using a specific API, and adapted to meet strict IREX speed and memory constraints. The main goal of this paper is to lower these barriers and advance open-source iris recognition large-scale evaluations by offering: (a) two new modern deep learning-based open-source iris matchers (ArcIris and TripletIris), along with their C++ IREX X-compliant implementations, which are the first open-source iris recognition methods included into the IREX X leaderboard (and thus IREX-vetted), as well as new segmentation and iris circular approximation models that can be incorporated into any new iris recognition method, and (b) a performance assessment (according to IREX X testing protocols) of all major and currently available open-source iris recognition solutions. The paper also provides Python implementations of the new ArcIris and TripletIris methods and discusses the differences one may encounter between C++ and Python implementations of the same conceptually equivalent approaches. Finally, the paper offers open-source, IREX X-compliant C++ implementations of two existing methods: (a) an iris image filtering-based algorithm utilizing human saliency-driven kernels (HDBIF), and (b) a human-interpretable algorithm for detecting and comparing Fuchs' crypts (CRYPTS). In addition to IREX X evaluation results, the paper reports the performance of all methods on major academic benchmarks: Quality-Face/Iris Research Ensemble (Q-FIRE), Warsaw-Biobase Post-Mortem Iris, CASIA-Iris-Thousand-V4, CASIA-Iris-Lamp-V4, IIT Delhi Iris Database, IIITD Contact Lens Iris Database, NDIris3D, and Notre Dame Variable Iris Image Quality Release 2 (VII-Q-R2).
Siamul Karim Khan, Patrick J. Flynn, Adam Czajka
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA · University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Iris-based biometric identification is increasingly recognized for its significant accuracy and long-term stability compared to other biometric modalities such as fingerprints or facial features. However, all biometric modalities are highly sensitive data that raise serious privacy and security concerns, particularly in decentralized and untrusted environments. While Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) has emerged as a promising solution for protecting sensitive data during computation, existing privacy-preserving iris recognition systems face significant performance limitations that hinder their practical deployment. This paper investigates the performance challenges of the current landscape of privacy-preserving iris recognition systems using FHE. Based on these insights, we outline a scalable privacy-preserving framework that aligns with all the requirements specified in the ISO/IEC 24745 standard. Leveraging the Open Iris library, our approach starts with robust iris segmentation, followed by normalization and feature extraction using Gabor filters to generate iris codes. We then apply binary masking to filter out unreliable regions and perform matching using Hamming distance on encrypted iris codes. The accuracy and performance of our proposed privacy-preserving framework is evaluated on the CASIA-Iris-Thousand dataset. Results show that our privacy-preserving framework yields very similar accuracy to the cleartext equivalent, but a much higher computational overhead with respect to pairwise iris template comparisons, of ∼120000×. This points towards the need for the deployment of two-level schemes in the context of scalable 1−N template comparisons.
Christina Karakosta, Lian Alhedaithy, William J. Knottenbelt
Soft-biometric attributes such as gender, age, and ethnicity provide valuable ancillary evidence when full identity recognition is not feasible, supporting applications in forensic investigation, identity verification, surveillance, or detection of synthetic and manipulated media. Among biometric modalities, the periocular region is a robust source of soft-biometric cues, as it often remains visible when other parts of the face are occluded, a frequent condition in forensic evidence and surveillance footage, and can be captured across a wide range of acquisition conditions. In this paper, we provide a survey of demographic attribute estimation from periocular images, covering publicly available datasets, methodological trends from handcrafted descriptors to deep learning architectures, and the state of the art in gender, age, and ethnicity prediction. We discuss use cases relevant to multimedia forensics and disinformation-detection applications, including demographic filtering in surveillance footage, age verification, and the detection of demographic inconsistencies in synthetic data. We also highlight open challenges, including dataset bias, cross-domain generalisation, fairness, ethical aspects, and the lack of forensic-oriented benchmarks.
Fernando Alonso-Fernandez, Kevin Hernandez-Diaz, Josef Bigun
School of Information Technology (ITE), Halmstad University, Sweden