A Biometric Menagerie Index for Characterising Template/Model-Specific Variation

  • Norman Poh
  • Josef Kittler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5558)


An important phenomenon influencing the performance of a biometric experiment, attributed to Doddington et al (1998), is that the match scores (whether under genuine or impostor matching) are strongly dependent on the model or template from which the match scores have been derived. Although there exist studies to classify the characteristic of the template/model, as well as the query data, into animal names such as sheep, goats, wolves and lambs – so-called Doddington’s menagerie, or higher semantic categories considering simultaneously both genuine and impostor match scores, due to Yager and Dunstone (2008), there is currently absence of means to characterise the extent of Doddington’s menagerie. This paper aims to design such an index, called the biometric menagerie index (BMI). It is defined as the ratio of the between-client variance and the expectation of the total variance. BMI has three desirable properties. First, it is invariant to shifting and scaling of the match scores. Second, its value lies between zero and one, with zero implying the absence of Doddington’s menagerie effect, and one signifying its strong presence. Third, it is experimentally verified that BMI generalizes to different choices of impostor population. Our findings based on the XM2VTS benchmark score database suggest the followings: First, the BMI of genuine match scores is generally higher than that of the impostor match scores. Second, two different matching algorithms observing the same biometric data may have significantly different BMI values, hence suggesting that the biometric menagerie is algorithm-dependent.


Biometric System Biometric Authentication Gaussian Copula Biometric Modality Biometric Sample 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Doddington, G., Liggett, W., Martin, A., Przybocki, M., Reynolds, D.: Sheep, Goats, Lambs and Wolves: A Statistical Analysis of Speaker Performance in the NIST 1998 Speaker Recognition Evaluation. In: Int’l. Conf. Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Sydney (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yager, N., Dunstone, T.: Worms, chameleons, phantoms and doves: New additions to the biometric menagerie. In: IEEE Workshop on Automatic Identification Advanced Technologies, June 2007, pp. 1–6 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poh, N., Kittler, J.: A Methodology for Separating Sheep from Goats for Controlled Enrollment and Multimodal Fusion. In: Proc. of the 6th Biometrics Symposium, Tampa, pp. 17–22 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hicklin, A., Ulery, B.: The myth of goats: How many people have fingerprints that are hard to match? Tech. Rep. NISTIR 7271, National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wittman, M., Davis, P., Flynn, P.J.: Empirical studies of the existence of the biometric menagerie in the frgc 2.0 color image corpus. In: Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop, June 2006, p. 33(2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Une, M., Otsuka, A., Imai, H.: Wolf attack probability: A theoretical security measure in biometric authentication systems. IEICE-Transactions on Info and Systems E91-D(5), 1380–1389 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Furui, S.: Cepstral Analysis for Automatic Speaker Verification. IEEE Trans. Acoustic, Speech and Audio Processing / IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing 29(2), 254–272 (1981)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pierrot, J.-B.: Elaboration et Validation d’Approaches en Vérification du Locuteur, Ph.D. thesis, ENST, Paris (September 1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, K.: Towards Better Making a Decision in Speaker Verification. Pattern Recognition 36(2), 329–346 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saeta, J.R., Hernando, J.: On the Use of Score Pruning in Speaker Verification for Speaker Dependent Threshold Estimation. In: The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop (Odyssey), Toledo, pp. 215–218 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genoud, D.: Reconnaissance et Transformation de Locuteur, Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Polythechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Auckenthaler, R., Carey, M., Lloyd-Thomas, H.: Score Normalization for Text-Independant Speaker Verification Systems. Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Journal 10, 42–54 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poh, N., Bengio, S.: F-ratio Client-Dependent Normalisation on Biometric Authentication Tasks. In: IEEE Int’l. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Philadelphia, pp. 721–724 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fierrez-Aguilar, J., Ortega-Garcia, J., Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J.: Target Dependent Score Normalisation Techniques and Their Application to Signature Verification. In: Zhang, D., Jain, A.K. (eds.) ICBA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3072, pp. 498–504. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poh, N., Kittler, J.: On the Use of Log-likelihood Ratio Based Model-specific Score Normalisation in Biometric Authentication. In: Lee, S.-W., Li, S.Z. (eds.) ICB 2007. LNCS, vol. 4642, pp. 614–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poh, N., Kittler, J.: Incorporating Variation of Model-specific Score Distribution in Speaker Verification Systems. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing 16(3), 594–606 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grother, P., Tabassi, E.: Performance of Biometric Quality Measures. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 29(4), 531–543 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krogh, A., Vedelsby, J.: Neural Network Ensembles, Cross-Validation and Active-Learning. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 7 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poh, N., Bengio, S.: Database, Protocol and Tools for Evaluating Score-Level Fusion Algorithms in Biometric Authentication. Pattern Recognition 39(2), 223–233 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Song, P.X.-K.: Multivariate dispersion models generated from gaussian copula. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 27(2), 305–320 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dass, S.C., Zhu, Y., Jain, A.K.: Validating a Biometric Authentication System: Sample Size requirements. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine 28(12), 1319–1902 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman Poh
    • 1
  • Josef Kittler
    • 1
  1. 1.CVSSPUniversity of Surrey, GuildfordSurreyUK

Personalised recommendations