Can Chimeric Persons Be Used in Multimodal Biometric Authentication Experiments?
Combining multiple information sources, typically from several data streams is a very promising approach, both in experiments and to some extent in various real-life applications. A system that uses more than one behavioral and physiological characteristics to verify whether a person is who he/she claims to be is called a multimodal biometric authentication system. Due to lack of large true multimodal biometric datasets, the biometric trait of a user from a database is often combined with another different biometric trait of yet another user, thus creating a so-called chimeric user. In the literature, this practice is justified based on the fact that the underlying biometric traits to be combined are assumed to be independent of each other given the user. To the best of our knowledge, there is no literature that approves or disapproves such practice. We study this topic from two aspects: 1) by clarifying the mentioned independence assumption and 2) by constructing a pool of chimeric users from a pool of true modality matched users (or simply “true users”) taken from a bimodal database, such that the performance variability due to chimeric user can be compared with that due to true users. The experimental results suggest that for a large proportion of the experiments, such practice is indeed questionable.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Fierrez-Aguilar, J., Ortega-Garcia, J., Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J., Bigun, J.: Kernel-Based Multimodal Biometric Verification Using Quality Signals. In: Defense and Security Symposium, Workshop on Biometric Technology for Human Identification, Proc. of SPIE, vol. 5404, pp. 544–554 (2004)Google Scholar
- 4.Dugelay, J.-L., Junqua, J.-C., Rose, K., Turk, M.: Workshop on Multimodal User Authentication (MMUA 2003), Santa Barbara, CA, December 11–12 (2003) (no publisher)Google Scholar
- 7.Poh, N., Bengio, S.: Improving Single Modal and Multimodal Biometric Authentication Using F-ratio Client Dependent Normalisation. Research Report 04-52, IDIAP, Martigny, Switzerland (2004)Google Scholar
- 11.Jain, A., Nandakumar, K., Ross, A.: Score Normalisation in Multimodal Biometric Systems. Pattern Recognition (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
- 12.Ross, A., Govindarajan, R.: Feature Level Fusion Using Hand and Face Biometrics. In: Proc. SPIE Conf. on Biometric Technology for Human Identification II. LNCS, vol. 5779, Orlando, pp. 196–204 (2005)Google Scholar
- 13.Poh, N. , Bengio, S.: Database, Protocol and Tools for Evaluating Score-Level Fusion Algorithms in Biometric Authentication. Research Report 04-44, IDIAP, Martigny, Switzerland (2004) (Accepted for publication in AVBPA 2005) Google Scholar
- 14.Matas, J., Hamouz, M., Jonsson, K., Kittler, J., Li, Y., Kotropoulos, C., Tefas, A., Pitas, I., Tan, T., Yan, H., Smeraldi, F., Begun, J., Capdevielle, N., Gerstner, W., Ben-Yacoub, S., Abdeljaoued, Y., Mayoraz, E.: Comparison of Face Verification Results on the XM2VTS Database. In: Proc. 15th Int’l. Conf. Pattern Recognition, Barcelona, vol. 4, pp. 858–863 (2000)Google Scholar
- 15.Lüttin, J.: Evaluation Protocol for the XM2FDB Database (Lausanne Protocol). Communication 98-05, IDIAP, Martigny, Switzerland (1998)Google Scholar
- 17.Keller, M., Mariéthoz, J., Bengio, S.: Significance Tests for bizarre Measures in 2-Class Classification Tasks. IDIAP-RR 34, IDIAP (2004)Google Scholar
- 18.Bengio, S., Mariéthoz, J.: The Expected Performance Curve: a New Assessment Measure for Person Authentication. In: The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop (Odyssey), Toledo, pp. 279–284 (2004)Google Scholar