Automated face recognition in forensic science: Review and perspectives

Clicks: 172
ID: 95568
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #109 of 132 articles by views in forensic science international

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 132 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
With recent technological innovations, the multiplication of captured images of criminal events has brought the comparison of faces to the forefront of the judicial scene. Forensic face recognition has become a ubiquitous tool to guide investigations, gather intelligence and provide evidence in court. However, its reliability in court still suffers from the lack of methodological standardization and empirical validation, notably when using automatic systems, which compare images and generate a matching score. Although the use of such systems increases drastically, it still requires more empirical studies based on adequate forensic data (surveillance footage and identity documents) to become a reliable method to present evidence in court. In this paper, we propose a review of the literature leading to the establishment of a methodological workflow to develop a score-based likelihood-ratio computation model using a Bayesian framework. Different approaches are proposed in the literature regarding the within-source and between-sources variability distributions modelling. Depending on the data available, the modelling approach can be specific to the case or generic. Generic approaches allow interpreting the score without any available images of the suspect. Such model is henceforth harder to defend in court because the results are not anchored to the suspect. To make sure the computed score-based LR is robust, we must assess the performance of the model with two main characteristics: the discriminating power and the calibration state of the model. We hence describe the main metrics (Equal Error Rate and Cost of log likelihood-ratio), and graphical representations (Tippett plots, Detection Error Trade-off plot and Empirical Cross-Entropy plot) used to quantify and visualize the performance characteristics.
Reference Key
jacquet2020automatedforensic Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jacquet, M.
Journal forensic science international
Year 2020
DOI
10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110124
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.