对比五种虹膜模糊方法,找出隐私与追踪精度的平衡点。
Trade-offs in Privacy-Preserving Eye Tracking through Iris Obfuscation: A Benchmarking Study
- 用五种方法模糊虹膜纹理,保持眼动追踪精度
- 风格迁移法在隐私保护和抗欺骗攻击上表现最佳
- 无通用最优解,需根据场景组合使用
随着硬件、计算机图形学和AI的发展,未来增强现实/虚拟现实头戴设备(HMD)可能像智能手机一样普及。内置眼动追踪可支持基于视线的研究与交互,但通常需原始眼图像,其中虹膜纹理是高价值生物特征,引发隐私担忧。此前研究尝试在保留眼动追踪性能的前提下模糊虹膜,但缺乏全面基准评估。本文对模糊、加噪、下采样、橡胶片模型和虹膜风格迁移五种方法进行评测,考察其在图像质量、隐私保护、任务性能及冒用攻击风险上的表现。以眼部分割和眼动估计为实用任务,虹膜识别准确率下降作为隐私指标,错误接受率衡量攻击风险。实验表明,传统图像处理如模糊和加噪对深度学习任务影响微小;而下采样、橡胶片模型和虹膜风格迁移能有效隐藏身份,其中风格迁移虽计算开销高,但在任务性能和抗欺骗攻击方面均更优。分析显示,不存在兼顾隐私、性能与计算成本的万能方案,建议实践者根据各方法优劣,合理组合以实现最优权衡。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Recent developments in hardware, computer graphics, and AI may soon enable AR/VR head-mounted displays (HMDs) to become everyday devices like smartphones and tablets. Eye trackers within HMDs provide a special opportunity for such setups as it is possible to facilitate gaze-based research and interaction. However, estimating users' gaze information often requires raw eye images and videos that contain iris textures, which are considered a gold standard biometric for user authentication, and this raises privacy concerns. Previous research in the eye-tracking community focused on obfuscating iris textures while keeping utility tasks such as gaze estimation accurate. Despite these attempts, there is no comprehensive benchmark that evaluates state-of-the-art approaches. Considering all, in this paper, we benchmark blurring, noising, downsampling, rubber sheet model, and iris style transfer to obfuscate user identity, and compare their impact on image quality, privacy, utility, and risk of imposter attack on two datasets. We use eye segmentation and gaze estimation as utility tasks, and reduction in iris recognition accuracy as a measure of privacy protection, and false acceptance rate to estimate risk of attack. Our experiments show that canonical image processing methods like blurring and noising cause a marginal impact on deep learning-based tasks. While downsampling, rubber sheet model, and iris style transfer are effective in hiding user identifiers, iris style transfer, with higher computation cost, outperforms others in both utility tasks, and is more resilient against spoof attacks. Our analyses indicate that there is no universal optimal approach to balance privacy, utility, and computation burden. Therefore, we recommend practitioners consider the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and possible combinations of those to reach an optimal privacy-utility trade-off.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。