Exploring Similarity Measures for Biometric Databases

  • Praveer Mansukhani
  • Venu Govindaraju
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3546)


Currently biometric system performance is evaluated in terms of its FAR and FRR. The accuracy expressed in such a manner depends on the characteristics of the dataset on which the system has been tested. Using different datasets for system evaluation makes a true comparison of such systems difficult, more so in cases where the systems are designed to work on different biometrics, such as fingerprint and signature. We propose a similarity metric, calculated for a pair of fingerprint templates, which will quantize the “confusion” of a fingerprint matcher in evaluating them. We show how such a metric, can be calculated for an entire biometric database, to give us the amount of difficulty a matcher has, when evaluating fingerprints from that database. This similarity metric can be calculated in linear time, making it suitable for large datasets.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Grandidier, F., Sabourin, R., Yacoubi, A.E., Gilloux, M., Suen, C.Y.: Influence of Word Length on Handwriting Recognition. In: Proc. Fifth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (Septmeber 1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xue, H., Govindaraju, V.: On the dependence of Handwritten Word Recognisers on Lexicons. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 24(12) (December 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolle, R.M., Pankanti, S., Ratha, N.K.: Evaluation techniques for biometricbased authentication systems (FRR)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marti, U.-V., Bunke, H.: On the influence of Vocabulary Size and Language Models in Unconstrained Handwritten Text Recognition. IEEE Proceedings 0-7695-1263-1/01Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nagakawa, S., Murase, I.: Relationship between Phoneme Recognition Rate, Perplexity and Sentence Recognition and Comparision of Language Models. IEEE Proceedings 0-7803-0532-9/92Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolle, R.M., Ratha, N.K., Pankanti, S.: Evaluating Authentication Systems Using Bootstrap Confidence IntervalsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khanna, R., Shen, W.: Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) Benchmarking Using National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Database 4. IEEE Proceedings 0-7803. 1479-4/94Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marti, U.-V., Bunke, H.: Unconstrained Handwriting Recognition: Language Models, Perplexity, and System Performance. In: Schomaker, L.R.B., Vuurpijl, L.G. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition (September 2000) ISBN 90-76942-01-3Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cappelli, R., Maio, D., Maltoni, D.: Synthetic Fingerprint-Database Generation. IEEE Proceedings 1051-4651/02Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pankanti, S., Prabhakar, S., Jain, A.K.: On the Individuality of Fingerprints. IEEE Transactions on PAMI 24(8) (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Praveer Mansukhani
    • 1
  • Venu Govindaraju
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Unified Biometrics and Sensors (CUBS)University at Buffalo 

Personalised recommendations