Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Iris Recognition for Infants

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read With an infant-specific sensor and segmenter, iris recognition for 4-6 week old babies reaches a 3% equal error rate.

desk verdict A genuinely new infant iris pipeline with transparent limitations, but the 3% EER is not yet believable because of same-session burst redundancy and model selection on the evaluation set. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01375 v1 pith:CIY6MVOG submitted 2025-01-02 cs.CV

Rasel Ahmed Bhuiyan , Mateusz Trokielewicz , Piotr Maciejewicz , Sherri Bucher , Adam Czajka This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords infantirisrecognitionnewbornidentificationsegmentationnear-infraredimagingequalerrorratesyntheticimagesbiometricqualitymetricsprivacy-safedatarelease
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that iris recognition, which fails on infants when adult-oriented systems are used directly, can be made to work for babies aged 4 to 6 weeks. The authors built a custom near-infrared iris scanner and, more importantly, a segmentation model trained to cope with infant eyes, whose pupils appear unusually bright in NIR images. With that combination, the best matcher configuration reached an equal error rate of 3% and an area under the ROC curve of 99% on 1,920 images from 17 infants, whereas the same matchers without the infant-specific segmenter scored between 20% and 34% error. The motivation is practical: a reliable, non-invasive identifier for newborns could reduce baby swapping and abductions and support health-record linkage in hospitals and humanitarian settings. The authors acknowledge that all genuine matches come from a single session, so whether infant iris patterns stay stable enough for later re-identification is not yet tested.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the Infant Iris Segmentation (IIS) model, a nested U-Net with shared atrous (dilated) convolutions and attention blocks, trained from scratch on about 21,000 adult iris images that were augmented with brighter, randomly tinted pupils to mimic the NIR reflection from infant retinas. It is paired with a custom 4-megapixel NIR scanner producing images with roughly 900 pixels across the iris diameter, five times the ISO recommendation for the highest-quality samples. The segmenter carries the argument by converting infant images that adult segmenters cannot process into usable iris codes: failure-to-match falls from as high as 99.13% to zero, letting ordinary texture encoders achieve the reported performance. The paper also uses a generative model trained on the collected images to produce 1,000 synthetic samples without leaking infant identity.

What would settle it

Re-enroll the same infants or a new cohort in a second session at least several weeks after the first and compute cross-session genuine matches. If the cross-session equal error rate rises well above the 3% same-session figure, for example above 10%, while same-session comparisons stay at 3%, then the proposed system would not support the intended use of enrolling at birth and verifying later in life.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On images of 4-6 week old infants, collected with a purpose-built NIR sensor and segmented by an infant-specific deep model, iris recognition becomes feasible: the best configuration reaches an equal error rate of 3% and an AUC of 99%, while four state-of-the-art adult matchers applied with their default segmentation reach EERs between 20% and 34% and AUCs no higher than 0.88. A commercial adult-oriented matcher could not process any infant image at all. The paper attributes the improvement to segmentation rather than to the texture encoders: replacing the default segmenters with the proposed infant-specific model reduces the failure-to-match rate to zero for all evaluated encoding approaches and lifts the decidability score $d'$ to between 2.72 and 3.70. The same segmenter also handles adult and post-mortem iris images, and the paper offers a synthetic dataset of 1,000 privacy-safe infant images generated from the collected data.

Load-bearing premise

The entire performance claim rests on the assumption that same-session images of an infant, taken minutes apart under one clinical protocol, predict how well that infant's iris will match images taken days, weeks, or months later; the paper itself states that this long-term stability has not been demonstrated for this age group.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With infant-specific segmentation, four existing iris texture encoders reach equal error rates between 3% and 5% and AUCs of 0.99 on the collected infant images; without it, the same encoders give 20% to 34% error and AUCs between 0.73 and 0.88.
  • The failure-to-match rate drops to 0% once the proposed segmenter is used, meaning the bottleneck for infant iris recognition is image processing rather than the infant iris texture itself.
  • Infant images score higher than adult images on several ISO/IEC 29794-6 quality metrics, including usable iris area, iris-sclera contrast, gray-scale utilization, iris radius, pupil-iris ratio, and motion blur, while lower sharpness and zero iris-pupil contrast are the main quality gaps.
  • A commercial adult matcher could not process any of the 1,920 infant images, suggesting that infant-specific acquisition and preprocessing are necessary for any practical deployment.
  • The released synthetic iris images give other researchers a privacy-safe way to develop infant iris algorithms without access to clinical data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the single-session results reflect genuine iris pattern stability, the same pipeline could be tested as an enrollment-at-birth system, but that extrapolation goes beyond what the paper demonstrates.
  • Because the key augmentation (brightening the pupil) mimics pharmacological mydriasis as well as infant anatomy, the segmenter might also improve iris recognition for adults with dilated pupils, for example in some medical or forensic settings.
  • A natural next test is to retrain the proposed segmenter using only the synthetic images plus adult data and evaluate on the authentic infant images; success would mean other groups with no clinical access can reproduce the pipeline.
  • The fact that the authors worked within an existing retinopathy screening procedure suggests a deployment path where iris capture adds only seconds to a standard clinical exam, but it also means image quality and availability are tied to a medical workflow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper explores the feasibility of iris recognition for infants aged 4-6 weeks. The authors collected 1,920 NIR iris images from 17 infants using a custom-designed sensor, evaluated six existing iris matchers, and proposed a new infant iris segmentation model. Coupling the proposed segmenter with four encoders, they report EER=3% and AUC=99%, in contrast to EER≥20% for the unmodified adult-oriented methods. They also release 1,000 synthetic infant iris images generated by a StyleGAN2-ADA model and make code available. The central claim is that with infant-specific hardware and segmentation, iris recognition can be made to work for infants, despite the small dataset and single-session acquisition.

Significance. If validated, this would be a meaningful step for newborn identification in clinical and humanitarian settings, and the custom sensor plus segmentation model are useful engineering contributions. The paper is honest about several limitations (Sec. 7), and the release of synthetic data and code is a practical contribution to a data-scarce area. However, the quantitative claim (EER=3%) is currently supported by an evaluation protocol that is not independent: all genuine comparisons are within a single session, the segmentation model is selected using images from the same evaluation pool, and the best-performing encoder is chosen on the same data. The paper therefore demonstrates that infant irises can be segmented and encoded consistently within a short video burst, but it does not yet demonstrate recognition performance across the realistic enrollment-to-verification scenario. The significance of the result hinges on re-analysis with subject-wise independence and temporal de-duplication.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, §6.2] The reported EER=3% and AUC=99% are computed on genuine pairs that come almost entirely from the same single session, in which images were captured as several 10-second video bursts (Sec. 3.3). Consequently, a large fraction of genuine comparisons are between near-duplicate frames taken a fraction of a second apart under identical illumination, dilation, and pose. Matching such pairs measures short-term image repeatability, not identity persistence. Section 7 acknowledges the single-session limitation, but it does not quantify how much of the 3% EER is attributable to temporal correlation. The authors should re-compute all performance metrics using only image pairs drawn from different sequences (or at most one frame per sequence), and report subject-disjoint results. Without this, the central quantitative claim is not established.
  2. [§5.2, §6.2] The segmentation model was selected by maximizing IoU on 'a small set of hand-annotated authentic infant iris images' (Sec. 5.2), which are part of the same 1,920-image pool later used for the recognition evaluation (Sec. 6.2). Additionally, the headline EER=3% is the best result among four encoding pipelines evaluated on that same pool. This constitutes model and encoder selection on the evaluation data, biasing the reported performance upward. The authors should hold out one or more subjects entirely for final evaluation, use a disjoint validation set for model selection and encoder choice, and report the performance of the single pre-selected configuration on the held-out subjects.
  3. [§6.2] With only 17 subjects, all imaged in one session, no confidence intervals are provided for EER, AUC, or d'. The effective number of independent genuine comparisons is much smaller than the raw number of image pairs, because all images of a subject are highly correlated within a burst. The authors should report bootstrap confidence intervals (e.g., resampling subjects or sequences) and, ideally, per-subject performance distributions. This is necessary to judge whether the 3% EER is meaningfully different from the baseline error rates.
  4. [§6.2, Fig. 5-6] The comparison to 'state-of-the-art adult iris recognition systems' is presented as a direct performance comparison, but the proposed segmenter was trained with infant-specific augmentations and validated on infant data, while the adult baselines use their default, adult-oriented parameters. This is a legitimate experimental design for showing that off-the-shelf methods fail on infants, but the paper should state explicitly that the baselines were not tuned or retrained on infant data, and should avoid wording that implies a fair algorithm comparison. The conclusion that the proposed system 'outperforms' adult systems should be framed as 'outperforms unmodified adult-oriented systems under default settings'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'succesfully' should be 'successfully'.
  2. [§7] VeriEye is misspelled as 'VeryEye' in the first paragraph of the discussion.
  3. [§3.4] The description of synthetic-sample filtering using HDBIF matching is slightly ambiguous: 'matching score below 0.5' refers to a Hamming distance, so lower scores indicate closer matches. The sentence should clarify that samples too close to authentic images were removed to prevent identity leakage.
  4. [§5.1] The pupil-brightness augmentation range is described as 'randomly assigned pixel intensities within this range' after computing min/max from a circle detection model. It would be clearer to state whether the min/max are computed per image or globally across the training set, and to specify the exact ranges used.
  5. [§6.2] The failure-to-match (FTM) rates for vanilla methods are reported as percentages, but the definition of FTM is not given in the text. A one-sentence definition would help readers interpret these numbers.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported EER=3% is not an independent prediction: the segmenter is selected on authentic infant images that are part of the same 1,920-image evaluation set, and the headline number is the best of four pipelines chosen after seeing test-set performance.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.2 (Proposed Segmentation Model) and Sec. 6.2 (Feasibility of Infant Iris Recognition)]
    "A small set of hand-annotated authentic infant iris images was used in validation to pick the best model by maximizing average intersection over union between predicted and ground truth masks. ... All possible genuine and impostor pairs, possible to be generated from 1,920 infant images, were considered in this study."

    The only authentic infant iris images described in the paper are the 1,920 collected samples (Sec. 3.3). The segmenter is explicitly selected using a validation set of authentic infant images, and the recognition evaluation then uses all possible pairs from the 1,920 infant images, with no statement that the validation subset was excluded. Thus the reported EER is computed, at least in part, on images that contributed to choosing the segmentation model. The model selection and the performance estimate share the same data, so the EER is not an out-of-sample prediction for the segmenter.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 6.2 (Feasibility of Infant Iris Recognition) and Abstract]
    "The OSIRIS matcher integrated with our segmentation model demonstrated the best performance, achieving an EER of 3%. ... The proposed system, incorporating the specially-designed iris sensor and segmenter, and applied to the collected infant iris samples, achieved Equal Error Rate (EER) of 3%."

    The headline 3% is the minimum EER among four encoding pipelines (OSIRIS 3%, HDBIF 4%, USIT 5%, DGR 5%) evaluated on the same 1,920-image set. The paper selects the best-performing pipeline after observing its test-set scores and then reports that selected value as 'the proposed system.' This is model selection on the evaluation data: the reported number is the minimum of the evaluated set, not a prediction for a pipeline chosen before seeing the test results. The 3% figure is therefore partly constructed by the selection rule rather than being an independent estimate.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical rather than mathematical, but two evaluation choices make the headline number partially circular. First, the proposed segmenter is chosen by maximizing IoU on authentic infant images, and the recognition experiment uses all 1,920 infant images without any stated exclusion of the validation subset; therefore the EER is computed on data that helped select the segmenter. Second, the abstract reports the best EER among four encoding pipelines evaluated on that same set, which turns the reported 3% into a minimum-over-pipelines statistic. These issues are not self-citation problems: the cited prior works (HDBIF, post-mortem segmentation, the open-source iris repository) provide external algorithms and are not load-bearing in a circular way. Section 7 honestly acknowledges single-session acquisition and the open question of infant iris stability, but that is an external-validity limitation, not a circularity step. The underlying idea that infant irises can be segmented and encoded retains independent content, so the circularity is partial rather than total; hence a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the fidelity of the simulated infant-like augmentations, the assumption that infant iris texture is sufficiently stable within a session to support matching, and the reliability of the small hand-annotated validation set for model selection. No new theoretical entities are introduced; the custom sensor and synthetic dataset are artifacts rather than postulates.

free parameters (4)
  • SHARPNESS threshold = 10
    Samples with ISO/IEC 29794-6 SHARPNESS below 10 were discarded, reducing the set from 4,202 to 1,920 images (Sec. 3.3). This threshold is hand-chosen and affects the evaluation dataset.
  • pupil brightness augmentation range = 109-190
    In training the segmentation model, pupil pixel intensities were replaced with values in [109,190], chosen to mimic infant NIR reflections (Sec. 5.1).
  • synthetic data filtering threshold = 0.5
    Synthetic StyleGAN samples with HDBIF matching score below 0.5 were removed to prevent identity leakage (Sec. 3.4).
  • rotation augmentation range = -15 to 15 degrees
    Random rotations applied to training images (Sec. 5.1).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Iris texture is fully formed by the eighth month of gestation
    Cited from [23] in the Introduction; this is the basis for expecting infant irises to be discriminative.
  • ad hoc to paper The pupil-brightness augmentations applied to adult images produce realistic infant-like samples
    The augmentations (bright pupil, rotation, Z-normalization) are introduced specifically to train the segmenter; their fidelity to real infant images is validated only on a small hand-annotated set (Sec. 5.1).
  • domain assumption StyleGAN2-ADA can generate identity-leakage-free synthetic infant iris images
    The paper assumes the HDBIF thresholding removes any samples that match training data, but this is not a proof of identity leakage (Sec. 3.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Iris Recognition for Infants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIY6MVOG

@misc{pith2026250101375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Iris Recognition for Infants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIY6MVOG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01375}
}
abstract

Non-invasive, efficient, physical token-less, accurate and stable identification methods for newborns may prevent baby swapping at birth, limit baby abductions and improve post-natal health monitoring across geographies, within the context of both the formal (i.e., hospitals) and informal (i.e., humanitarian and fragile settings) health sectors. This paper explores the feasibility of application iris recognition to build biometric identifiers for 4-6 week old infants. We (a) collected near infrared (NIR) iris images from 17 infants using a specially-designed NIR iris sensor; (b) evaluated six iris recognition methods to assess readiness of the state-of-the-art iris recognition to be applied to newborns and infants; (c) proposed a new segmentation model that correctly detects iris texture within infants iris images, and coupled it with several iris texture encoding approaches to offer, to the first of our knowledge, a fully-operational infant iris recognition system; and, (d) trained a StyleGAN-based model to synthesize iris images mimicking samples acquired from infants to deliver to the research community privacy-safe infant iris images. The proposed system, incorporating the specially-designed iris sensor and segmenter, and applied to the collected infant iris samples, achieved Equal Error Rate (EER) of 3\% and Area Under ROC Curve (AUC) of 99\%, compared to EER$\geq$20\% and AUC$\leq$88\% obtained for state of the art adult iris recognition systems. This suggests that it may be feasible to design methods that succesfully extract biometric features from infant irises.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Frontal and rear views of the handheld newborn iris [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of synthetically-generated infant iris images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of iris segmentation visualizations across various states: infant, adult, and post-mortem. The visualizations compare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the selected ISO/IEC 29794-6 iris image quality metrics calculated for adult and infant iris samples. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of genuine and impostor scores for four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of genuine and impostor scores for four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Synthetic Iris Image Databases and Identity Leakage: Risks and Mitigation Strategies

    cs.CV 2025-06 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of synthetic iris generation methods and the risk of biometric identity leakage from training data, with prevention strategies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gray, Gautham Suresh, Robert Ursprung, William H

    James E. Gray, Gautham Suresh, Robert Ursprung, William H. Edwards, Julianne Nickerson, Pat H. Shiono, Paul Plsek, Donald A. Goldmann, and Jeffrey Horbar. Patient misidentification in the neonatal intensive care unit: Quan- tification of risk. Pediatrics, 117(1):e43–e47, Jan. 2006. 1

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Nancy L Segal. Twins switched at birth: Frequency, life histories, twin relationships, and critical issues/twin research reviews: Classroom placement; mirror syndrome; unusual twinning; parenting stress/human interest: Triplet film; edu- cational achievement; prison release; co-twin impersonation; facial recognition technology. Twin Research and Human Gen...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide

    Richard E Gliklich, Nancy A Dreyer, and Michelle B Leavy. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care, 2014. Report No.: 13(14)-EHC111. 1

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    The wrong patient

    Mark R Chassin and Elise C Becher. The wrong patient. Annals of Internal Medicine, 136(11):826–833, 2002. 1

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Analysis of infant abduction trends

    National Center for Missing & Exploited Chil- dren’s (NCMEC’s). Analysis of infant abduction trends. https : / / ojp . gov / library / publications / analysis-infant-abduction-trends , Sep. 2021. [Accessed 07-08-2024]. 1

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    21 rare babies switched at birth statis- tics

    Brandon Gaille. 21 rare babies switched at birth statis- tics. https://brandongaille.com/20-babies- switched - at - birth - statistics/, May 2017. [Accessed 10-08-2024]. 1

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Siwo, Ian Taylor, and Sherri Bucher

    Maria Freytsis, Iain Barclay, Swapna Krishnakumar Radha, Adam Czajka, Geoffery H. Siwo, Ian Taylor, and Sherri Bucher. Development of a mobile, self-sovereign identity approach for facility birth registration in kenya. Frontiers in Blockchain, 4, 2021. 1

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Neonatal mortality burden and trends in unhcr refugee camps, 2006–2017: a retrospective analysis

    Hannah Tappis, Marwa Ramadan, Josep Vargas, Vincent Kahi, Heiko Hering, Catrin Schulte-Hillen, and Paul Spiegel. Neonatal mortality burden and trends in unhcr refugee camps, 2006–2017: a retrospective analysis. BMC Public Health, 21(1), Feb. 2021. 2

    work page 2006

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    J. G. Daugman. High confidence visual recognition of per- sons by a test of statistical independence. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , 15(11):1148–1161, November

  2. [10]

    Human iris recognition in post-mortem subjects: Study and database

    Mateusz Trokielewicz, Adam Czajka, and Piotr Maciejew- icz. Human iris recognition in post-mortem subjects: Study and database. In IEEE International Conference on Biomet- rics: Theory Applications and Systems (BTAS) , pages 1–6, Niagara Falls, NY , USA, Sept 2016. IEEE. 2

    2016

  3. [11]

    Postmortem iris recognition and its applica- tion in human identification

    Alora Sansola. Postmortem iris recognition and its applica- tion in human identification. Master’s thesis, Boston Univer- sity, Boston, MA, USA, 2015. 2

    2015

  4. [12]

    Trokielewicz

    M. Trokielewicz. Linear regression analysis of template ag- ing in iris biometrics. In IAPR/IEEE International Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics, pages 1–6, March 2015. 2

    2015

  5. [13]

    K. W. Bowyer and E. Ortiz. Critical examination of the IREX VI results. IET Biometrics, 4(4):192–199, 2015. 2

    2015

  6. [14]

    Norman Nelufule and Anton De Kock. Infant iris biometric recognition system: Can the iris be used for a secure infant recognition system? In 2023 Conference on Information Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS), pages 1–

    2023

  7. [15]

    Information technology – Biometric sample quality – Part 6: Iris image data, 2015

    ISO/IEC 29794-6:2015. Information technology – Biometric sample quality – Part 6: Iris image data, 2015. 2

    2015

  8. [16]

    Anatom- ical and clinical characteristics of paediatric and adult eyes

    Mittal Sunita, Sharma Manisha, Mittal Kumar Sanjeev, Ku- mar Satish Ravi, Juneja Aarzoo, and Agrawal Ajai. Anatom- ical and clinical characteristics of paediatric and adult eyes. National Journal of Clinical Anatomy, 10(1):5–9, 2021. 2

    2021

  9. [17]

    Genetics of human iris colour and patterns

    Richard A Sturm and Mats Larsson. Genetics of human iris colour and patterns. Pigment cell & melanoma research , 22(5):544–562, 2009. 2

    2009

  10. [18]

    The iris: understanding the essen- tials

    Kambiz Thomas Moazed. The iris: understanding the essen- tials. Springer Nature, 2020. 2

    2020

  11. [19]

    Domain specific learning for newborn face recognition

    Samarth Bharadwaj, Himanshu S Bhatt, Mayank Vatsa, and Richa Singh. Domain specific learning for newborn face recognition. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 11(7):1630–1641, 2016. 2

    2016

  12. [20]

    Infant footprint recognition

    Eryun Liu. Infant footprint recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1653–1660, 2017. 2

    2017

  13. [21]

    Biometric recognition of infants using fingerprint, iris, and ear biometrics

    Yaseen Moolla, Anton De Kock, Gugulethu Mabuza- Hocquet, Cynthia Sthembile Ntshangase, Norman Nelufule, and Portia Khanyile. Biometric recognition of infants using fingerprint, iris, and ear biometrics. IEEE Access, 9:38269– 38286, 2021. 3

    2021

  14. [22]

    Multimodal biomet- ric recognition for toddlers and pre-school children

    Pratichi Basak, Saurabh De, Mallika Agarwal, Aakarsh Mal- hotra, Mayank Vatsa, and Richa Singh. Multimodal biomet- ric recognition for toddlers and pre-school children. In 2017 IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB) , pages 627–633. IEEE, 2017. 3

    2017

  15. [23]

    New methods in iris recognition

    John Daugman. New methods in iris recognition. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cy- bernetics), 37(5):1167–1175, 2007. 3, 5, 6

    2007

  16. [24]

    A longitudinal study of iris recognition in children

    Morgan Johnson, David Yambay, Dan Rissacher, Laura Hol- sopple, and Stephanie Schuckers. A longitudinal study of iris recognition in children. In 2018 IEEE 4th International Con- ference on Identity, Security, and Behavior Analysis (ISBA), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2018. 3

    2018

  17. [25]

    VeriEye SDK v11.1, 2019

    Neurotechnology. VeriEye SDK v11.1, 2019. 3, 5

    2019

  18. [26]

    A longitudinal analysis on the feasibil- ity of iris recognition performance for infants 0-2 years old

    Torrey Hutchison. A longitudinal analysis on the feasibil- ity of iris recognition performance for infants 0-2 years old. Master’s thesis, Purdue University, 2018. 3

    2018

  19. [27]

    Image quality assessment for iris biometrics for minors

    Norman Nelufule, Antonie de Kock, Gugulethu Mabuza- Hocquet, and Yaseen Moolla. Image quality assessment for iris biometrics for minors. In 2019 Conference on Infor- mation Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS) , pages 1–6. IEEE, 2019. 3

    2019

  20. [28]

    Circular interpolation techniques towards accurate segmentation of iris biometric images for infants

    Norman Nelufule, Gugulethu Mabuza-Hocquet, and Anton de Kock. Circular interpolation techniques towards accurate segmentation of iris biometric images for infants. In 2020 International SAUPEC/RobMech/PRASA Conference, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2020. 3

    2020

  21. [29]

    Iris recognition perfor- mance in children: A longitudinal study

    Priyanka Das, Laura Holsopple, Dan Rissacher, Michael Schuckers, and Stephanie Schuckers. Iris recognition perfor- mance in children: A longitudinal study. IEEE Transactions on Biometrics, Behavior, and Identity Science, 3(1):138–151,

  22. [30]

    Training generative ad- versarial networks with limited data

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Samuli Laine, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Training generative ad- versarial networks with limited data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12104–12114, 2020. 4

    2020

  23. [31]

    Domain-specific human-inspired binarized statisti- cal image features for iris recognition

    Adam Czajka, Daniel Moreira, Kevin Bowyer, and Patrick Flynn. Domain-specific human-inspired binarized statisti- cal image features for iris recognition. In 2019 IEEE Win- ter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 959–967. IEEE, 2019. 5

    2019

  24. [32]

    Post-mortem iris recognition with deep-learning- based image segmentation

    Mateusz Trokielewicz, Adam Czajka, and Piotr Maciejew- icz. Post-mortem iris recognition with deep-learning- based image segmentation. Image and Vision Computing , 94:103866, 2020. 5

    2020

  25. [33]

    Design decisions for an iris recognition sdk

    Christian Rathgeb, Andreas Uhl, Peter Wild, and Heinz Hof- bauer. Design decisions for an iris recognition sdk. In Hand- book of Iris Recognition, pages 359–396. Springer, 2016. 5

    2016

  26. [34]

    Iris recognition: From seg- mentation to template security, ser

    C Rathgeb, A Uhl, and P Wild. Iris recognition: From seg- mentation to template security, ser. Advances in Information Security, 59:2, 2013. 5

    2013

  27. [35]

    Recognition of human iris patterns for biomet- ric identification

    Libor Masek. Recognition of human iris patterns for biomet- ric identification. PhD thesis, University of Western Aus- tralia, 2003. 5

    2003

  28. [36]

    Osiris: An open source iris recognition software

    Nadia Othman, Bernadette Dorizzi, and Sonia Garcia- Salicetti. Osiris: An open source iris recognition software. Pattern Recognition Letters, 82:124–131, 2016. 5

    2016

  29. [37]

    https://pages.nist

    IREX 10: Identification Track. https://pages.nist. gov/IREX10/. Accessed: April 6, 2024. 5

    2024

  30. [38]

    Dy- namic graph representation for occlusion handling in biomet- rics

    Min Ren, Yunlong Wang, Zhenan Sun, and Tieniu Tan. Dy- namic graph representation for occlusion handling in biomet- rics. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 11940–11947, 2020. 5

    2020

  31. [39]

    Graph at- tention networks

    Petar Veli ˇckovi´c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph at- tention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 , 2017. 5

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Iris: Iris recognition inference system of the worldcoin project

    Worldcoin AI. Iris: Iris recognition inference system of the worldcoin project. https : / / github . com / worldcoin/open-iris, 2023. 5

    2023

  33. [41]

    Two-headed eye-segmentation approach for biometric identification

    Wiktor Lazarski, Maciej Zieba, Tanguy Jeanneau, Tobias Zillig, and Christian Brendel. Two-headed eye-segmentation approach for biometric identification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15471, 2022. 5

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Adam Czajka, Siamul Karim Khan, Mateusz Trokielewicz, and Patrick J. Flynn. University of Notre Dame Open Source Iris Recognition Repository. https://github.com/ CVRL/OpenSourceIrisRecognition/ . Accessed: April 18, 2024. 5, 6

    2024

  35. [43]

    Casia.v4 database

    Biometrics Ideal Test. Casia.v4 database. http : / / biometrics.idealtest.org. Accessed: 2002. [On- line]. 6

    2002

  36. [44]

    Frvt 2006 and ice 2006 large-scale experimental results

    Cathy L Schott and Matthew Sharpe. Frvt 2006 and ice 2006 large-scale experimental results. IEEE Transactions on Pat- tern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 32(5):831, 2010. 6

    2006

  37. [45]

    Iris recognition after death

    Mateusz Trokielewicz, Adam Czajka, and Piotr Maciejew- icz. Iris recognition after death. IEEE Transactions on In- formation Forensics and Security , 14(6):1501–1514, 2018. 6

    2018

  38. [46]

    https : / / cvrl

    Nd-twins-2009-2010. https : / / cvrl . nd . edu / projects/data/. Accessed: 2019-05-14. 6

    2009

  39. [47]

    The ubiris

    Hugo Proenc ¸a, Silvio Filipe, Ricardo Santos, Joao Oliveira, and Luis A Alexandre. The ubiris. v2: A database of vis- ible wavelength iris images captured on-the-move and at-a- distance. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence, 32(8):1529–1535, 2009. 6

    2009

  40. [48]

    Openeds: Open eye dataset

    Stephan J Garbin, Yiru Shen, Immo Schuetz, Robert Cavin, Gregory Hughes, and Sachin S Talathi. Openeds: Open eye dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.03702, 2019. 6

    1905 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.