Soft Computing

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 797–808 | Cite as

A cooperative coevolutionary approach dealing with the skull–face overlay uncertainty in forensic identification by craniofacial superimposition

Focus

Abstract

Craniofacial superimposition is a forensic process where photographs or video shots of a missing person are compared with the skull that is found. By projecting both photographs on top of each other (or, even better, matching a scanned three-dimensional skull model against the face photo/video shot), the forensic anthropologist can try to establish whether that is the same person. The whole process is influenced by inherent uncertainty mainly because two objects of different nature (a skull and a face) are involved. In previous work, we categorized the different sources of uncertainty and introduced the use of imprecise landmarks to tackle most of them. In this paper, we propose a novel approach, a cooperative coevolutionary algorithm, to deal with the use of imprecise cephalometric landmarks in the skull–face overlay process, the main task in craniofacial superimposition. Following this approach we are able to look for both the best projection parameters and the best landmark locations at the same time. Coevolutionary skull–face overlay results are compared with our previous fuzzy-evolutionary automatic method. Six skull–face overlay problem instances corresponding to three real-world cases solved by the Physical Anthropology Lab at the University of Granada (Spain) are considered. Promising results have been achieved, dramatically reducing the run time while improving the accuracy and robustness.

Keywords

Forensic identification Craniofacial superimposition skull–face overlay Fuzzy landmarks Fuzzy distances Evolutionary algorithms CMA-ES Coevolutionary algorithm Genetic fuzzy systems 

References

  1. Bloch I (1999) On fuzzy distances and their use in image processing under imprecision. Pattern Recognit 32:1873–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bucci A, Pollack JB (2005) On identifying global optima in cooperative coevolution. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO’05), ACM, pp 539–544Google Scholar
  3. Buckley JJ, Eslami E (1997) Fuzzy plane geometry I: points and lines. Fuzzy Sets Syst 86(2):179–187MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Damas S, Cordón O, Ibáñez O, Santamaría J, Alemán I, Navarro F, Botella M (2011) Forensic identification by computer-aided craniofacial superimposition: a survey. ACM Comput Surv 43(4). http://doi.acm.org/1978802.1978806
  5. Deb K, Beyer H (1999) Self-adaptation in real-parameter genetic algorithms with simulated binary crossover. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conferenceGoogle Scholar
  6. Diamond P, Kloeden P (2000) Metric topology of fuzzy numbers and fuzzy analysis. In: Dubois D, Prade H (eds) Fundamentals of fuzzy sets. The handbooks of fuzzy sets, chap 11, Kluwer Academic, pp 583–637Google Scholar
  7. Dubois D, Prade H (1983) On distance between fuzzy points and their use for pausible reasoning. In: International conference on systems, man and cybernetics, pp 300–303Google Scholar
  8. Eiben AE, Smith JE (2003) Introduction to evolutionary computing. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. Fenton TW, Heard AN, Sauer NJ (2008) Skull–photo superimposition and border deaths: identification through exclusion and the failure to exclude. J Forensic Sci 53(1):34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen N, Ostermeier A (2001) Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evol Comput 9(2):159–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hearn D, Baker MP (1997) Computer graphics (2nd edn.) C version. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  12. Hee-Kyung P, Jin-Woo C, Hong-Seop K (2006) Use of hand-held laser scanning in the assessment of craniometry. Forensic Sci Int 160:200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrera F, Lozano M, Verdegay JL (1998) Tackling real-coded genetic algorithms: operators and tools for the behavioural analysis. Artif Intell Rev 12(4):265–319MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ibáñez O, Ballerini L, Cordón O, Damas S, Santamaría J (2009) An experimental study on the applicability of evolutionary algorithms to craniofacial superimposition in forensic identification. Inf Sci 179:3998–4028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ibáñez O, Cordón O, Damas S, Santamaría J (2011) Modeling the skull–face overlay uncertainty using fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 19(5):946–959Google Scholar
  16. Iscan MY (1993) Introduction to techniques for photographic comparison. In: Iscan MY, Helmer R (eds) Forensic analysis of the skull, Wiley, pp 57–90Google Scholar
  17. Krogman WM, Iscan MY (1986) The human skeleton in forensic medicine, 2nd edn. Charles C. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  18. Paredis J (1995) Coevolutionary computation. Artif Life 2:355–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Potter MA, De Jong KA (2000) Cooperative coevolution: an architecture for evolving coadapted subcomponents. Evol Comput 8(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Richtsmeier J, Paik C, Elfert P, Cole TM, Dahlman F (1995) Precision, repeatability and validation of the localization of cranial landmarks using computed tomography scans. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J 32(3):217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosin CD, Belew RK (1997) New methods for competitive coevolution. Evol Comput 5(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Santamaría J, Cordón O, Damas S, Alemán I, Botella M (2007) A scatter search-based technique for pair-wise 3D range image registration in forensic anthropology. Soft Comput 11(9):819–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Santamaría J, Cordón O, Damas S, García-Torres JM, Quirin A (2009a) Performance evaluation of memetic approaches in 3D reconstruction of forensic objects. Soft Comput 13(8–9):883–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Santamaría J, Cordón O, Damas S, Ibáñez O (2009b) Tackling the coplanarity problem in 3D camera calibration by means of fuzzy landmarks: a performance study in forensic craniofacial superimposition. In: IEEE international conference on computer vision, Kyoto, Japan, pp 1686–1693Google Scholar
  25. Santamaría J, Cordón O, Damas S (2010) A comparative study of state-of-the-art evolutionary image registration methods for 3D modeling. Comput Vis Image Underst 115(9):1340–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stephan CN, Simpson EK (2008a) Facial soft tissue depths in craniofacial identification (part I): an analytical review of the published adult data. J Forensic Sci 53(6):1257–1272Google Scholar
  27. Stephan CN, Simpson EK (2008b) Facial soft tissue depths in craniofacial identification (part II): an analytical review of the published sub-adult data. J Forensic Sci 53(6):1273–1279Google Scholar
  28. Stephan CN (2009) Craniofacial identification: techniques of facial approximation and craniofacial superimposition. In: Blau S, Ubelaker DH (eds) Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology. Left Coast Press, California, pp 304–321 Google Scholar
  29. Ubelaker DH (2000) A history of Smithsonian–FBI collaboration in forensic anthropology, especially in regard to facial imagery. Forensic Sc Commun 2(4):(online)Google Scholar
  30. Wiegand RP (2003) An analysis of cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. PhD thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiegand RP, Liles W, De Jong K (2001) An empirical analysis of collaboration methods in cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference, pp 1235–1242Google Scholar
  32. Zitová B, Flusser J (2003) Image registration methods: a survey. Image Vis Comput 21:977–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Centre for Soft ComputingMieresSpain
  2. 2.DECSAI and CITIC-UGRUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations