Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Algorithm Helps Identify Criminals
Ponca City, We love you writes to tell us that a new software approach to police sketch artists is finding surprising success in a trial run of 15 police departments in the UK and a few other sites. The software borrows principles from evolution with an interactive genetic algorithm that progressively changes as witnesses try to remember specific details. Current field trials are reporting an increase in successful identification by as much as double conventional methods. A short video with a few working shots of the new "EFIT-V" system is also available on YouTube. "[Researcher Christopher Solomon]'s software generates its own faces that progressively evolve to match the witness' memories. The witness starts with a general description such as 'I remember a young white male with dark hair.' Nine different computer-generated faces that roughly fit the description are generated, and the witness identifies the best and worst matches. The software uses the best fit as a template to automatically generate nine new faces with slightly tweaked features, based on what it learned from the rejected faces. 'Over a number of generations, the computer can learn what face you're looking for,' says Solomon. The mathematics underlying the software is borrowed from Solomon's experience using optics to image turbulence in the atmosphere in the 1990s."
I understand it's an evolutionary algorithm, but it has nothing to do with DNA.
it seems to me that if you pick the best face from each "generation" and then randomly modify it and pick the best from the next generation, you are merely hillclimbing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_climbing and not using a proper GA. This seems to be something that the EigenFit package does.
TFA says that up to six faces may be "bred" together resulting in a new generation, which would indeed be genetic, so the EvoFit package seems to be genuinely genetic.
TFA is unsurprisingly short on details, but it seems to me that EigenFit is using hillclimbing (at least partially) while EvoFit is using shotgun-genetic.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
Didn't they used to do this like 100 yrs ago? "See he looks like an animal, therefore he must be criminal" I vaguely remember seeing something along the lines of that being a prosecution's argument and it being accepted.
It's funny that they may have been onto something? :P
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
...a police artist sitting at a sketch pad drawing a helical structure. He glances back at a witness sitting across the desk. After drawing two intertwined double-helices, he begins filling in base pairs like the rungs of a ladder. He draws Guanine joining a Cytosine. And just as he finishes the Adenine joining a Thiamine the witness screams "That's the guy!"
Yes: Is it a frog?
No: Please enter the type of animal.
This article reminds me of the old Animal game, where it does a binary search for whatever type of animal you're thinking. It's been expanded to handle all types of nouns, with a 15-questions interface that is uncanny.
For another computer-generated facial reconstruction test, take a look at the mona lisa.
This is about evolving an image from generic features to a specific person by having the viewer rate a series of generated faces from best-to-worst matching.
Not that this is any better. At best it's leading a witness because it promotes guessing, at worst I feed source imagery of stereotypical "bad guys" and voila: every Snidley Whiplash lookalike in the country is running for the hills.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
This is the perfect tool to throw someone off.
Commit a crime but "become a victim". Falsely describe who you saw and bam, they're in jail and you are "free".
"Yes ossifer, the man that robbed that liquor store was a black man, about 6-1/2 feet tall, dingy yellow/blonde short hair, lots of tattoos on his body, earrings. Just looking at him, I think he plays basketball.". A short time later after the call goes out, some cops arrest Dennis Rodman for a crime he didn't commit.
There's a fair amount of research on the performance of memory and how our recall of events and things is affected by the very act of being questioned about and actively recalling those memories. Before I relied on this for much of anything, I'd want to see some pretty well controlled studies on just how accurate it is. For example, they should put the test subjects under some kind of stress, have them look at the person they will have to describe and have sketched, then put them in front of the software (do a control group using traditional sketch-artist techniques, while you're at it. You should be able to do an objective evaluation of the accuracy of the sketch by mathematically comparing it (using existing algorithms developed for facial recognition) to determine just how close the resemblance is.
How do they know if this thing actually works? If they're using the computer generated sketch to finger a suspect, and then presenting that sketch as evidence to a jury who convicts, and then using that conviction as evidence of the algorithms accuracy that's just circular reasoning.
The memory is not an immutable thing. It's quite possible that in the process of generating the sketch you are leading the witness on, even implanting memories. So what happens if you generate a sketch that doesn't look like the actual criminal, and present that to a jury and get a conviction. Is that going to be counted as a success?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
http://www.20q.net/startg_enUS.html
www.eFax.com are spammers
I got the opportunity to do a genetic algorithm at my university for one of my projects, and I'm surprised that only now is this tech becoming slightly popular.
You take a fistful of bad answers to a problem, throw 'em in a breeding pit, and let 'em go at it.
you essentially breathe life into binary data, becoming a God, and allowing 'your people' to evolve into a solution to your problem.
I suppose you could call yourself an 'Intelligent Designer', but that lacks panache.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
My sketch ended up as a pink elephant ... go figure!
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
This technology, at its core, is a little bit like PicBreeder. It doesn't include the complexification, but the principle is the same.
There is an argument about 'leading the witness' being bandied about as if that makes this thing useless. If you read the articles, they talk about that, and they show that it is no worse than any existing techniques, gets good results, and works for people that can't work with sketch artists.
The reality is, this technology has applications beyond what it is being used for.
Personally, I would *LOVE* to be able to tinker with technology like this.
The test case:
Get a group of test subjects - college students are always great for this. Have your "assailant" run up to the subject and Yell, "Hi!" and then hand the "victim" a flower and then run off. Right then and there, the "victim" goes a "files a police report" with the researchers following typical police procedure.
After about a thousand tests on different subjects with statistically significant positive results, then and only then, will I start to believe this "technology" and maybe with more tests will I think it should be allowed as evidence in a court of law.
Other than that it just a gimmick - we're talking about taking people's freedom here or sentencing them to death.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
A wizard for designing a criminal suspect on the fly!
I understand the use of the term genetic in the case of this algorithm, but I can't help but wonder about obligatory Minority Report hypotheticals. In the USA your DNA is been stolen by the Government at birth; apparently they've been doing this since the 1970's. After the Feds work with it, it is then "anonymized" and sold to third parties such as medical research facilities and insurance agencies.
Intertwining these technologies leads this avid conspiracy theorist to fanciful visions of a future where one is not guilty because some mutant fortune tellers can see your future crimes, but instead because the computer simply says so.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Nine different computer-generated faces that roughly fit the description are generated, and the witness identifies the best and worst matches. The software uses the best fit as a template to automatically generate nine new faces with slightly tweaked features, based on what it learned from the rejected faces.
I immediately thought of the Mii Channel on Wii when I read this. One of the ways to create a Mii is to start with a bunch of randomized faces and pick the one that looks the most like you (or whoever you're modeling). From there, it generates 9 variations of that face for you to choose from. This system is obviously more advanced, but the basic idea is the same.
Your brain is not a computer.
The wii gives me a lot more than 9 choices when I make a new Mii, and I don't have to use any math or borrowing ...
this e-fit that helped the Bolivian Police track down a murder suspect
Smivs on the intertubes!
I couldn't help it, this story made me think of an epic scene from the 1982 movie porky's. In the movie a few young men are looking at girls through a peep hole in the girls locker room shower. One young man sticks his talleywhacker through the hole and almost has it torn off by the lesbian'ish PE teacher. Anyways, here's a synopsis of the following scene, courtesy of imdb.
Balbricker: Now, Mr. Carter. I know this is completely unorthodox. But I think this is the only way to find that boy. Now that penis had a mole on it - I'd recognize that penis anywhere. In spite of the juvenile snickers of some, this is a serious matter. That seducer and despoiler must be stopped; he's extremely dangerous. And, Mr. Carter, I'm certain that everyone in this room knows who that is. He's a contemptible little pervert who...
Mr. Carter: Miss Balbricker!
Balbricker: Well, I'm sorry, but I've got him now, and I'm not going to let him slip through my fingers again. Now, all I'm asking is that you give me five boys for a few minutes. The coaches can be present - Tommy Turner and any four boys you see fit to choose and we... and we... can put a stop to this menace. And it is a menace.
[pause]
Balbricker: Well, what are you gonna do about it?
Mr. Carter: Five young boys in the nude, a police line-up so that you can identify his tallywhacker. Please, please can we call it a "tallywhacker"? Penis is so ppp... penis is so personal.
Balbricker: We can put hoods over their heads to avoid embarrassment. Now listen: we have got to do it, as distasteful as it is. I know it's him. That
[pause]
Balbricker: tallywhacker had a mole on it. And that mole is the key to it.
Mr. Carter: Miss Balbricker, do you realize the difficulty of your request? Now, I would be very happy to, uh, to apprehend the young man myself. But can you imagine what the board of education would say if you were granted a line-up in order to examine their private pa... their private parts for an incriminating mole?
Balbricker: But Mr. Carter.
Coach Brakett: Mr. Carter, I think I have a way out of this. We, uh, call the police, and we have 'em send over one of their sketch artists. And Miss Balbricker can give a description. We can put up "Wanted" posters all over school..."Have you seen this prick? Report immediately to Beulah Balbricker. Do not attempt to apprehend this prick, as it is armed and dangerous. It was last seen hanging out in the girls' locker room at Angel Beach High School."
Welcome to the digital age of racial profiling.
Damn, you are that old? No wonder that you only vaguely remember it, but my goodness, you must be the oldest Slashdotter.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
My name is Dr Matthew Maylin, I developed this software at the university of Kent during my PhD, and continue to develope it as the sole software engineer for the company. The algorithm used is an evolutionary algorithm, implementing random mutations, but no cross-over or mutation. Although the user does have the option to 'bred'/combine certain faces within the software. The method uses a statistical model of the human face (Cootes et el 2001), and at anyone time is restricted to a sample to a single ethnicity and gender. The are however, many databases of face statistcs that are used. Here is a movie of the process: http://www.visionmetric.com/images/stories/EFIT-V_demo.htm I believe here is the original slashdot post: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/17/1042231.shtml?tid=133&tid=152&tid=185&tid=186 There have been many controlled studies on this system, it has been trialled by the forces in the UK over 3 years ago, and now is actively sold across the world. Psychological studies have been made by Dr Graham Pike (seen in the video) at the Open University. The quality of the images vary and are ultimately limited by the users ability to recall the face - some users are better than others - but generally composites are produced more quickly - to a higher quality - than 'jigsaw' based methods.