Textured Contact Lenses Detection in Iris Recognition Using Weber Local Descriptor (WLD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Out of many available biometric identification methods, iris recognition seems to be promising and most accurate method. The reason is iris structure remains unchanged throughout one's lifetime. One of the live applications of this is: over 1000 ATMs of financial institutions in Chicago and Montreal are now using iris recognition in lieu of debit cards. Imagine the situation if iris recognition systems/scans used in ATMs are fooled or spoofed. Financial system will break with a huge damage. To avoid this, there must exist technique(s) to determine if iris recognition methods are being bypassed. This paper presents an in-depth analysis of the effect of contact lens on iris recognition performance. We also present the IIIT-D Contact Lens Iris database with over 6500 images pertaining to 101 subjects. For each subject, images are captured without lens, transparent (prescription) lens, and color cosmetic lens (textured) using two different iris sensors. Weber Local Descriptor (WLD) is proposed in this paper for feature extraction in contact lenses detection. Also, the results are compared with Binarized Statistical Image Feature (BSIF) analysis which shows that WLD gives favorable results. We organize WLD features to compute a histogram by encoding both differential excitations and orientations at certain locations. This method focuses on different properties of a pixel of iris image and thus, it provides more accurate results than other techniques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".