Relating ROC and CMC curves via the biometric menagerie

In the academic literature, the matching accuracy of a biometric system is typically quantified through measures such as the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and Cumulative Match Characteristic (CMC) curve. The ROC curve, measuring verification performance, is based on aggregate statistics of match scores corresponding to all biometric samples, while the CMC curve, measuring identification performance, is based on the relative ordering of match scores corresponding to each biometric sample (in closed-set identification). In this study, we determine whether a set of genuine and impostor match scores generated from biometric data can be reassigned to virtual identities, such that the same ROC curve can be accompanied by multiple CMC curves. The reassignment is accomplished by modeling the intra- and inter-class relationships between identities based on the “Doddington Zoo” or “Biometric Menagerie” phenomenon. The outcome of the study suggests that a single ROC curve can be mapped to multiple CMC curves in closed-set identification, and that presentation of a CMC curve should be accompanied by a ROC curve when reporting biometric system performance, in order to better understand the performance of the matcher.

[1]  Massimo Tistarelli,et al.  Exploiting the “doddington zoo” effect in biometric fusion , 2009, 2009 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications, and Systems.

[2]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  The relation between the ROC curve and the CMC , 2005, Fourth IEEE Workshop on Automatic Identification Advanced Technologies (AutoID'05).

[3]  Douglas A. Reynolds,et al.  SHEEP, GOATS, LAMBS and WOLVES A Statistical Analysis of Speaker Performance in the NIST 1998 Speaker Recognition Evaluation , 1998 .

[4]  Beatrice Gralton,et al.  Washington DC - USA , 2008 .

[5]  Arun Ross,et al.  An introduction to biometric recognition , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.

[6]  J.P. Hube,et al.  Using Biometric Verification to Estimate Identification Performance , 2006, 2006 Biometrics Symposium: Special Session on Research at the Biometric Consortium Conference.

[7]  Arun Ross,et al.  Can a “poor” verification system be a “good” identification system? A preliminary study , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS).

[8]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Latent Fingerprint Matching , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[9]  Neil Yager,et al.  The Biometric Menagerie , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[10]  Dmitry O. Gorodnichy,et al.  Multi-order biometric score analysis framework and its application to designing and evaluating biometric systems for access and border control , 2011, 2011 IEEE Workshop on Computational Intelligence in Biometrics and Identity Management (CIBIM).

[11]  Tieniu Tan,et al.  A Framework for Evaluating the Effect of View Angle, Clothing and Carrying Condition on Gait Recognition , 2006, 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR'06).

[12]  George W. Quinn,et al.  Report on the Evaluation of 2D Still-Image Face Recognition Algorithms , 2011 .

[13]  Dmitry O. Gorodnichy Multi-order analysis framework for comprehensive biometric performance evaluation , 2010, Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[14]  Arun Ross,et al.  Gait curves for human recognition, backpack detection, and silhouette correction in a nighttime environment , 2010, Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[15]  Dong Xu,et al.  Face and Human Gait Recognition Using Image-to-Class Distance , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology.

[16]  Charles L. Wilson,et al.  Nonparametric analysis of fingerprint data on large data sets , 2007, Pattern Recognit..

[17]  Hyeonjoon Moon,et al.  The FERET evaluation methodology for face-recognition algorithms , 1997, Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.