SegDenseNet: Iris Segmentation for Pre and Post
Cataract Surgery

Abstract—Cataract is caused due to various factors such as
age, trauma, genetics, smoking and substance consumption, and
radiation. It is one of the major common ophthalmic diseases
worldwide which can potentially affect iris-based biometric
systems. India, which hosts the largest biometrics project in the
world, has about 8 million people undergoing cataract surgery
annually. While existing research shows that cataract does not
have a major impact on iris recognition, our observations suggest
that the iris segmentation approaches are not well equipped to
handle cataract or post cataract surgery cases. Therefore, failure
in iris segmentation affects the overall recognition performance.
This paper presents an efficient iris segmentation algorithm
with variations due to cataract and post cataract surgery.
The proposed algorithm, termed as SegDenseNet, is a deep
learning algorithm based on DenseNets. The experiments on the
IIITD Cataract database show that improving the segmentation
enhances the identification by up to 25% across different sensors
and matchers.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Iris recognition is one of the most reliable technologies
available for person identification. It has gained a lot of
importance due to the high accuracies and availability of
commercial and open source iris recognition softwares such as
Iricore1 , VeriEye2 , MIRLIN3 . Owing to high discriminability
of iris patterns, several large-scale systems are utilizing iris
recognition systems. For instance, Government of India’s
Aadhaar project [1] has enrolled over 1.2 billion citizens in the
system using three biometric modalities, viz. face, fingerprint,
and iris.
In such systems which include population of all age groups,
several different kinds of challenges are encountered. For
instance, elderly people have difficulty in opening the eyes
and it is difficult to ensure that young kids keep the eyes
stable so that it can be captured properly. Another important
covariate faced by iris recognition systems is the presence
of ocular diseases. Cataract is one of the several leading
ophthalmic diseases in several countries. In 2010, more than
800,000 eyes in Germany [2] and more than 81,500 eyes in
Austria underwent cataract surgery [3]. In India, it has been
reported that the Aadhaar system will be host to approximately
8, 000, 000 cataract patients undergoing surgery annually by
2020 [4]. This poses a challenge for the researchers in the
biometrics field, since the state-of-the-art algorithms fail to
∗ Equal

contribution by student authors

1 https://goo.gl/TLcyAs

S2: Crossmatch S1: IriShield

arXiv:1801.10100v1 [] 30 Jan 2018

Aditya Lakra*, Pavani Tripathi*, Rohit Keshari, Mayank Vatsa, Richa Singh
IIIT-Delhi, India
Email: {aditya13006, pavani13147, rohitk, mayank, rsingh}@iiitd.ac.in

(Pre-surgery)

(Post-surgery)

(Healthy-surgery)

Fig. 1: Illustrating the challenges with iris segmentation in
cataract affected eyes. Two commercial-of-the-shelf (COTS)
systems have been used to segment the cataract affected iris
images. Green and red & blue circles represent segmentation
using VeriEye and Matcher-1, respectively.
give promising results on patients who have undergone cataract
surgery [5]. For instance, Fig. 1 shows the mis-classifications
generated by state-of-the-art iris segmentation algorithms4 .
The current recommendations include that the individuals have
to be re-enrolled into the system a few weeks after the surgery
[1], [5]. This implies that approximately 8 million citizens will
have to be re-enrolled annually by 2020. Since re-enrollment is
a manually expensive task, this research explores an alternative
strategy to improve the performance of iris recognition.
Researchers have made significant efforts in studying the
effect of cataract surgery on the iris pattern and structure.
Roizenblatt et al. [6] were the first one to study the consequences of cataract surgery on iris pattern. Their hypothesis
was that iris recognition systems fail due to changes such as
depigmentation and localized iris atrophy, with loss of large
areas of Fuchs crypts, circular, and radial furrows and pupil
ovalization. However, Dhir et al. [7] performed a study on
a small dataset of 15 subjects and concluded that cataract
surgery does not tamper the iris pattern. Rather, the dilation
of pupil and specular reflections in the pupil region are the
reasons why conventional circle-based algorithms and lightposition-based pupil algorithms fail to achieve high accuracy.
Further, Preethi and Jayanthi [8] observed that structural
changes occur in iris. Thus, it is advisable to re-enroll the
patient after surgery. Recently, Nigam et al. [9] showed that,

2 http://www.neurotechnology.com/verieye.html
3 https://www.fotonation.com/products/biometrics/iris-recognition/

4 Due

to license restriction, we cannot name the Matcher-1.

in different ophthalmic diseases cases, incorrect segmentation
of iris region is a potential cause of reduced accuracy of stateof-the-art iris recognition systems. It is imperative to improve
the existing segmentation algorithms to ensure accurate segmentation of the iris regions in pre and post cataract surgery
images.
A. Literature Review
Iris segmentation on images acquired under unconstrained
environment have been explored by researchers. Zhao and
Kumar [10] proposed a method which segments out the iris
region based on the pupillary and limbic regions as well as by
fitting a parabolic equation around the eyelids. Iris region has
a lot of intensity, textural and structural information which
can be used to for segmentation. Proenca [11] proposed a
color based iris segmentation technique which classifies the
iris pixels using a neural network. Tan and Kumar [12] used
support vector machines (SVM) for classifying the Zernike
moments extracted from around the pixels. These are few
examples of pixel-based and boundary-based iris segmentation
techniques. However, these algorithms are based on enormous
amount of pre-knowledge of the dataset, as well as, pre and
post-processing. Liu et al. [13] proposed a deep learning based
architecture for iris segmentation. The model gave state-of-theart accuracy on CASIA v4-Distance and UBIRISv2 datasets
and does not require post-processing. Recently, Jalilian et al.
[14] proposed linear and non-linear based domain adaptation
methods for iris segmentation using fully convolutional network.
B. Research Contributions
To the best of authors’ knowledge no research has been
performed towards improving segmentation algorithms such
that it can segment out the iris region from pre and post
cataract surgery images. Developing an algorithm that can
segment the iris region from eyes of cataract patients and those
who have underwent cataract surgery, is the goal of this paper.
This also leads to the elimination of the re-enrollment process.
The major contributions of this research are:
1) We propose a deep learning based algorithm which can
segment the iris pattern from images of eyes taken pre
and post cataract surgery.
2) Since there is no pre and post cataract surgery database
with annotated segmentation ground truth, we have generated ground truth masks for the IIITD Cataract Surgery
Database using Adobe Photoshop5 . The database has
images pertaining to 132 subjects and they are acquired using three different sensors, namely Crossmatch,
IriShield, and Vista. These annotations are used for
training and evaluating the performance of the proposed
segmentation algorithms and they will also be released
to the research community to promote research on this
problem.
5 http://www.adobe.com/in/products/photoshop.html

II. S EG D ENSE N ET: I RIS S EGMENTATION A LGORITHM
Convolutional neural networks have demonstrated to
achieve very high accuracies in several recognition tasks.
Inspired by its success, researchers have also explored their
effectiveness for segmenting natural images. Long et al.
[15] modeled segmentation as a classification problem and
designed Fully Convolutional Networks (FCN) for semantic
segmentation. FCN is a special kind of neural network which
only has convolution layers, pooling layers, and upsampling
layers. It can input an arbitrary sized image and output a mask
of corresponding size.
Chen et al. [16] used ResNet [17] architecture and showed
that with deep architectures, semantic segmentation accuracy
can be improved significantly. Drozdzal et al. [18] proposed
a deep learning based architecture for semantic segmentation
using DenseNet [19] and demonstrated that deep architecture
indeed increases the segmentation accuracy. However, iris
segmentation is somewhat different from segmenting natural
images. While semantic segmentation requires global as well
as local information, iris segmentation requires very fine
details such as inclusion of iris features, sharp boundary
of the iris, and disposing the fine iris regions occluded by
reflection, eye-lash and hair. To the best of our knowledge, no
deep learning based algorithm exists for iris segmentation for
cataract patients. During cataract, a cloudy white layer forms
on the pupil, due to which state-of-the-art iris segmentation
algorithms which use pixel intensity values to segment the
iris fail to segment out the correct region of interest. In
post cataract surgery, the specular reflections, morphological
changes on the iris and pupil, increase the failure cases for
existing methods.
Based on the idea behind FCN [15], we propose a deep
learning architecture, SegDenseNet, for cataract affected iris
segmentation which fuses the outputs from all the convolution blocks present in any deep learning architecture. In
our implementation, we have used DenseNet [19] with 121
convolution layers, having four convolution blocks. For fine
prediction of the iris region, we fuse outputs from all the four
dense blocks. In our architecture, the Fusion Layer performs a
weighted sum operation on the four prediction maps as shown
in equation 5. For our experiments all the intermediate feature
maps have been given equal weight. The proposed architecture
is presented in Fig. 2. As illustrated in the figure, the number
of channels in the mask is one because there is only one class:
the iris region. Using convolution, the channel dimension of
the outputs of all the four DenseNet blocks is reduced to 1, as
shown in Eqs. 1-4. These feature maps are then deconvolved
as shown in Eqs. 1-3 to produce feature maps having coarse
and fine details of the iris region. Finally, we fuse the four
outputs (5) and deconvolve it to the size of the input image,
to produce the desired mask (6). The sample outputs of the
four convolutional blocks before they are converted to feature
maps with 1 channel are visualized in Fig. 3.
0
I1 = Dfn (XN
0 ) ⊗ Conv(1, 1, 1)ΨDeconv(4, 4, 1)

(1)

Fig. 2: Architecture of the proposed iris segmentation algorithm.
Algorithm 1 Cataract Iris Segmentation
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:

Fig. 3: Outputs of the four convolution blocks used for fusion.
(a) Input image. Sample output of (b) first convolution block,
(c) second convolution block, (d) third convolution block and
(e) fourth convolution block

9:
10:
11:
12:
13:
14:

0
I2 = Dfn (X(N
(2)
0 −1) ) ⊗ Conv(1, 1, 1)ΨDeconv(8, 8, 1)

15:
16:

0
I3 = Dfn (X(N
0 −2) ) ⊗ Conv(1, 1, 1)ΨDeconv(16, 16, 1)
(3)

17:

0
I4 = Dfn (X(N
0 −3) ) ⊗ Conv(1, 1, 1)

(4)

I5 = w1 I1 + w2 I2 + w3 I3 + w4 I4

(5)

M = Dfn (I5 )ΨDeconv(8, 8, 1)

(6)

Database: {A, B}
where:
A = CASIA v4-Distance dataset
B = IIITD Cataract Surgery Database
tr
Input: XN
← {A, B}; XPte ←{B}
te
Output: MP
Model: SDM ← SegDenseN et(DenseN et − 121)
tr
tr 0
)
← resize(XN
XN
tr 0
tr 0
)
XN 0 ← augment(XN
0
tr
for Batch in XN
0 do
train(SDM(Batch))
end for
for Batch in XPte do
MPte ← test(SDM (Batch))
end for
0
te
Post-processing:PMPte ← resize(Binarize(M
L te0 P ))
1
te0
error= P ×m×n i,j(m,n) MG (i, j) MP (i, j)

III. DATABASE AND E XPERIMENTAL P ROTOCOL

Pseudo code of the proposed SegDenseNet is given in
Algorithm 1. The datasets A and B represent CASIA v4Distance and IIITD Cataract Surgery Database respectively.
tr
XN
depicts the training set which contains the images and
labels of dimension 224 × 224. The DenseNet-121 model
pretrained on ImageNet dataset is modified according to our
tr 0
requirements. The images are first resized, XN
, and then
0
tr
augmented, XN
0 . Post augmentation, we send the images and
the labels in a batch for training as well as testing. We binarize
the predicted masks and resize them to the size of the original
image i.e. 640 × 480. The error is then computed between the
0
te0
ground truth mask, MG
and predicted mask, MPte . The size
0
of X tr and M te is same.

The performance of the proposed iris segmentation algorithm is demonstrated on the IIITD Cataract Surgery database.
Since the cataract database is small in size, CASIA v4Distance database is used for training iris specific features.
In the following subsections, we describe the dataset details,
experimental protocol, and the implementation details.
A. Datasets
CASIA v4-Distance database [20] contains 2567 face images pertaining to 142 different subjects in the NIR spectrum.
Since the images are captured from a distance, all the images
have some level of noise. Each image captures a large portion
of the whole face thus containing both the irises of the subject.
After segmenting the eye region of these images, both right
and left eye images are used for pre-training.

Fig. 4: Sample iris images and their manually generated
ground truth masks.

Fig. 5: Showcasing the results of iris segmentation on post
(a)-(c) and pre (d)-(f) cataract surgery images. First row shows
the segmentation results using COTS systems, second row of
Zhao and Kumar [10], and the last row pertains to the proposed
algorithm.
IIITD Cataract Surgery Database6 containing eye images
with a total of 764 post surgery and 764 pre surgery images
acquired from a total of 132 subjects. However, the database
only contains the class labels and not the segmentation annotations. To evaluate the segmentation performance, we manually
annotated a total of 904 ground truth masks. Fig. 4 shows the
input images and their corresponding annotations. It can be
observed visually how sharp, fine and accurate the ground truth
masks are. These annotations will be publicly available to the
research community 7 . 70% database is utilized for training
and remaining 30% images (from unseen subjects) are used
for computing the segmentation performance. The original size
of the images is 640 × 480, however, the experiments are
performed with images resized to 224 × 224.
B. Implementation Details
The proposed deep learning architecture has been implemented in Keras [21] with Tensorflow backend. The DenseNet121 model pretrained on imagenet is first trained using left
and right healthy iris images from the CASIA v4-Distance
dataset [20], followed by finetuning using IIITD Cataract
Surgery Database. While training the model, the learning rate
and momentum values are set as 0.001 and 0.9 respectively
with SGD optimizer. The model was trained on NVIDIA
6 http://iab-rubric.org/resources/ICSD.html
7 http://www.iab-rubric.org/resources.html

GTX 1080ti GPU for a total of 500 epochs. Since deep
learning architectures require large number of samples for
training, images from both the datasets, CASIA v4-Distance
[20] and IIITD Cataract Surgery Databases, are augmented.
The augmentation is performed using contrast normalization
and flip operations to increase the database size by 10 times.
For contrast normalization, we have used 4 different contrast
factors where contrast factor is the number of times by which
the difference between a pixel value and the center value has
to be multiplied.
C. Fusion of Dense-blocks
In our implementation, we have used DenseNet-121 which
has four convolution blocks. Through visualization of masks,
as depicted in Fig. 6 it can be inferred that fusion of four
blocks gives the best result. The two cases presented in the
Fig. 6 showcase the morphological changes that may occur
post cataract surgery. The first row represents a case of pupil
rupture. The protrusion in the pupil is completely segmented
out only by the proposed method. In the case of the patient in
second row, the surgery has resulted in a puncture inside the
iris region. This deformity is completely segmented as noniris region only when four Dense-blocks are fused. While in
the other cases, some part of the puncture is segmented as iris
region with low confidence.
IV. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
The performance of the proposed algorithm is evaluated
in terms of both segmentation and matching performance.
For segmentation, the results are compared with Zhao and
Kumar [10], while the impact of the segmentation algorithm
on matching is demonstrated using a commercial system and
the deep learning based algorithm by Zhao and Kumar [22].
Segmentation Performance: The performance of the segmentation algorithm is measured in terms of metric from NICEI competition [23]. The average classification error rate is
calculated using equation 7.

Error =

m,n
X
0
1
te0
MG
(i, j) ⊕ MPte (i, j)
N × m × n i,j=1

(7)

In equation 7, N , m and n denote the total number of
test samples, height of the mask, and width of the mask
respectively. The logical exclusive-or operator calculates the
proportion of the correspondent disagreeing pixels.
Fig. 5 shows failed cases of COTS system. The results
obtained using state-of-the-art iris segmentation technique
proposed by Zhao and Kumar [10] are also shown in the
figure along with the iris masks obtained using SegDenseNet.
It should be noted that Zhao and Kumar’s method involves
parameter tuning. We have tried to fine-tune the parameters
to the best of our ability. It achieves average segmentation
error of 6.28% after parameter tuning. The proposed deep
learning based segmentation algorithm yields 0.98% average
segmentation error. The average segmentation error for both
the algorithms are compiled in Table I.

Input image

Ground truth

1-Block: fusion

2-Block: fusion

3-Block: fusion

4-Block: fusion
(Proposed)

Fig. 6: Visually illustrating the effect of fusing different number of dense blocks on the segmentation performance (obtained
masks are superimposed on the original image). The two different colours in each of the masks represent high and low
confidence level.
TABLE I: Average segmentation error rates on IIITD Cataract
Surgery Database.
Method

Error(%)

Proposed Method

0.98

Zhao and Kumar [10]

6.28

Recognition Performance: For calculating the iris recognition
accuracy, we have used a state-of-the-art commercial software
(Matcher I8 ) and Zhao and Kumar’s [22] state-of-the-art
deep learning based iris recognition. Table II summarizes the
recognition accuracies obtained with and without the proposed
segmentation algorithm, SegDenseNet.
The matching is performed amongst images captured before surgery (Pre-Pre), after surgery (Post-Post), and between
images captured before and after surgery (Pre-Post). The
recognition accuracies are summarized in Table II. It can be
observed that there is a significant rise in the accuracies when
SegDenseNet is used. For instance, with the COTS system
recognition pipeline, incorporating SegDenseNet improved the
accuracies by 2.4%, 2.2%, and 2.6%, in case of Pre-Pre
matching while using the three sensors, namely Crossmatch,
IriShield and Vista, respectively. In case of Post-Post we have
achieved 10.3%, 12.1% and 10.4% increase in accuracies and
in Pre-Post case the accuracies are improved by 27.4%, 23.0%
and 20.4% for the three sensors, respectively. Similar trend
in the results are observed when Zhao and Kumar’s [22]
recognition pipeline was used. However, the accuracies were
not as high as those obtained using COTS system. This could
be because none of the publicly available models are trained
using the cataract dataset. Also, due to failure of process 6
images were removed from the testing set. The ROC curves
in Fig. 7 compare the recognition accuracies obtained by
Matcher-1 and Zhao and Kumar’s [22] recognition pipeline
when they are used with our proposed segmentation technique,
SegDenseNet.
Figure 8 shows exemplars of images where the proposed
algorithm and commercial SDKs failed to correctly segment
8 Due to the license agreement with the manufacturer, the name of the
matcher is kept anonymous.

out the iris region. On visually observing the images, we
concluded that the failure happens due to bubbles in eyes.
Also, in most of the failed cases, iris images are present at offangle while there are very few training samples with off-angle
iris region and/or bubbles. It is our assertion that if the model
is trained with more number of such data samples, then the
model should be able to successfully segment the iris region.
V. C ONCLUSION
Cataract and it’s post-operative complications can cause iris
recognition algorithms to fail, particularly at the segmentation stage. Particularly, irregular pupil shape and significant
specular reflections after surgery lead to segmentation failures.
Therefore, this research focuses on designing a segmentation
algorithm for extracting iris region from eyes with cataract
and post cataract surgery. We propose a deep learning based
segmentation algorithm, named as SegDenseNet, that utilizes
four dense blocks to learn model-specific iris shape even
in presence of irregularities. Segmentation results on IIITD
Cataract Surgery Database show that the proposed deep learning based segmentation algorithm outperforms existing segmentation algorithms for cataract affected eyes. The matching
results also demonstrate the importance of improving the
segmentation algorithms on the cataract and post-operative
cases.
R EFERENCES
[1] “Unique identification authority of india.” [Online]. Available:
https://uidai.gov.in
[2] T. Kohnen, M. Baumeister, D. Kook, O. K. Klaproth, and C. Ohrloff,
“Cataract surgery with implantation of an artificial lens,” DAI, vol. 106,
no. 43, pp. 695–702, 2009.
[3] “Statistics austria - annual national health report from statistics austria,”
Tech. Rep. 76, 2012.
[4] M. Gudlavalleti, S. Gupta, N. John, and P. Vashist, “Current status of
cataract blindness and vision 2020: The right to sight initiative in india,”
vol. 56, pp. 489–94, 2008.
[5] O. Seyeddain, H. Kraker, A. Redlberger, A. Dexl, G. Grabner, and
M. Emesz, “Reliability of automatic biometric iris recognition after
phacoemulsification or drug-induced pupil dilation,” vol. 24, p. 0, 2013.
[6] R. Roizenblatt, P. Schor, F. Dante, J. Roizenblatt, and R. Belfort, “Iris
recognition as a biometric method after cataract surgery,” BEO, vol. 3,
no. 1, 2004.

TABLE II: Comparing verification accuracies at 0.1% false accept rate on the IIITD Cataract Surgery database.
Sensor

CrossMatch

1

Experiment
Matcher-1
Matcher-1 + SegDenseNet
Matcher-1 + SegDenseNet + Post-processing
Zhao and Kumar [22], [10]
Zhao and Kumar [22] + SegDenseNet
Zhao and Kumar [22] + SegDenseNet + Post-processing

IriShield

Matcher-1
Matcher-1 + SegDenseNet
Matcher-1 + SegDenseNet + Post-processing
Zhao and Kumar [22], [10]
Zhao and Kumar [22] + SegDenseNet
Zhao and Kumar [22] + SegDenseNet + Post-processing

Vista

Matcher-1
Matcher-1 + SegDenseNet
Matcher-1 + SegDenseNet + Post-processing
Zhao and Kumar [22], [10]
Zhao and Kumar [22] + SegDenseNet
Zhao and Kumar [22] + SegDenseNet + Post-processing

Crossmatch: Pre-Post Iris Recognition Performance

1

Subjects

Pre-Pre (%)
97.1
99.3
99.5
43.1
80.7
89.8

Post-Post (%)
76.5
84.7
86.8
64.1
78.0
70.7

Pre-Post (%)
68.2
92.1
95.6
25.2
56.8
61.2

39

97.4
99.6
99.6
78.6
95.3
95.2

81.1
92.5
93.2
89.7
85.7
83.1

73.7
95.5
96.7
56.9
72.4
72.0

27

96.8
99.2
99.4
3.4
91.4
90.1

83.7
92.9
94.1
5.4
69.0
75.5

75.0
90.9
95.4
0.7
43.1
44.3

44

IriShield: Pre-Post Iris Recognition Performance

1

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

GAR

0.9

GAR

0.9

GAR

0.9

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3
10 -4

Zhao and Kumar + SegDenseNet + Binarization
Matcher 1 + SegDenseNet + Binarization
10 -3

10 -2

10 -1

10 0

0.3
10 -4

Vista: Pre-Post Iris Recognition Performance

0.4

Zhao and Kumar + SegDenseNet + Binarization
Matcher 1 + SegDenseNet + Binarization
10 -3

FAR

10 -2

FAR

10 -1

10 0

0.3
10 -4

Zhao and Kumar + SegDenseNet + Binarization
Matcher 1 + SegDenseNet + Binarization
10 -3

10 -2

10 -1

10 0

FAR

Fig. 7: ROC curves for the recognition experiments performed on pre-post cataract surgery.

Fig. 8: Sample cases where COTS as well as the proposed
method failed to segment the iris perfectly. Green, Red & Blue
circles represent output of VeriEye and Matcher-1 respectively.

[7] L. Dhir, N. E Habib, D. M Monro, and S. Rakshit, “Effect of cataract
surgery and pupil dilation on iris pattern recognition for personal
authentication,” vol. 24, pp. 1006–10, 2009.
[8] D. Preethi and V. Jayanthi, “Som clustering approach: investigation on
cataract surgery structural changes in iris,” Biomedical Research, vol. 28,
no. 12, 2017.
[9] I. Nigam, M. Vatsa, and R. Singh, “Ocular biometrics: A survey of
modalities and fusion approaches,” Information Fusion, vol. 26, pp. 1–
35, 2015.
[10] Z. Zhao and A. Kumar, “An accurate iris segmentation framework under
relaxed imaging constraints using total variation model,” in IEEE ICCV,
2015.
[11] H. Proenca, “Iris recognition: On the segmentation of degraded images

acquired in the visible wavelength,” IEEE TPAMI, vol. 32, no. 8, 2010.
[12] C. W. Tan and A. Kumar, “Unified framework for automated iris
segmentation using distantly acquired face images,” IEEE TIP, vol. 21,
2012.
[13] N. Liu, H. Li, M. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Sun, and T. Tan, “Accurate iris
segmentation in non-cooperative environments using fully convolutional
networks,” in IEEE ICB, 2016.
[14] E. Jalilian, A. Uhl, and R. Kwitt, “Domain adaptation for cnn based iris
segmentation,” in BIOSIG, 2017.
[15] J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully convolutional networks
for semantic segmentation,” CoRR, vol. abs/1411.4038, 2014.
[16] L. Chen, G. Papandreou, I. Kokkinos, K. Murphy, and A. L.
Yuille, “Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs,” CoRR, vol.
abs/1606.00915, 2016.
[17] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image
recognition,” in IEEE CVPR, 2016, pp. 770–778.
[18] S. Jégou, M. Drozdzal, D. Vázquez, A. Romero, and Y. Bengio, “The
one hundred layers tiramisu: Fully convolutional densenets for semantic
segmentation,” CoRR, vol. abs/1611.09326, 2016.
[19] G. Huang, Z. Liu, and K. Q. Weinberger, “Densely connected convolutional networks,” IEEE CVPR, 2017.
[20] “Biometrics ideal test,” http:// biometrics.idealtest.org/ dbDetailForUser.
do?id=4.
[21] F. Chollet, “keras,” https://github.com/fchollet/keras, 2015.
[22] Z. Zhao and A. Kumar, “Towards more accurate iris recognition using
deeply learned spatially corresponding features,” in IEEE ICCV, 2017.
[23] “Nice-i - noisy iris challenge evaluation - part i,” http:// nice1.di.ubi.pt/
index.html, 2009.

