A Novel Personal Entropy Measure confronted with Online Signature Verification Systems' Performance

In this paper, we study the relationship between a novel personal entropy measure for online signatures and the performance of several state-of-the-art classifiers. The entropy measure is based on local density estimation by a hidden Markov model. We show that there is a clear relationship between such entropy measure of a person's signature and the behavior of the classifier. We carry out this study on a dynamic time warping classifier, a Gaussian mixture model and a hidden Markov model as well. It is worth noticing that the HMM classifier differs from the HMM used for entropy computation. Signatures were split into three categories according to their entropy value. These categories are coherent across four different databases of around 100 persons each: BIOMET, MCYT-100, BioSecure data subsets DS2 and DS3. We studied the impact of such categories on classifier's performance with a larger signature data subset of DS3, of 430 persons.

[1]  H. Vincent Poor,et al.  An Introduction to Signal Detection and Estimation , 1994, Springer Texts in Electrical Engineering.

[2]  Sung Yang Bang,et al.  A measure of recognition difficulty for a character image database , 1997, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition.

[3]  Neil Yager,et al.  Worms, Chameleons, Phantoms and Doves: New Additions to the Biometric Menagerie , 2007, 2007 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Identification Advanced Technologies.

[4]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[5]  Jonas Richiardi,et al.  Probabilistic models for multi-classifier biometric authentication using quality measures , 2008 .

[6]  Patrick J. Flynn,et al.  Empirical Studies of the Existence of the Biometric Menagerie in the FRGC 2.0 Color Image Corpus , 2006, 2006 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop (CVPRW'06).

[7]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  Guide to Biometrics , 2003, Springer Professional Computing.

[8]  M.C. Fairhurst,et al.  Impact of Signature Legibility and Signature Type in Off-Line Signature Verification , 2007, 2007 Biometrics Symposium.

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

[10]  Juan J. Igarza,et al.  MCYT baseline corpus: a bimodal biometric database , 2003 .

[11]  Gérard Chollet,et al.  BIOMET: A Multimodal Person Authentication Database Including Face, Voice, Fingerprint, Hand and Signature Modalities , 2003, AVBPA.

[12]  Douglas A. Reynolds,et al.  Robust text-independent speaker identification using Gaussian mixture speaker models , 1995, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process..

[13]  Akshay Chandra Dey,et al.  Worms , 1919, The Indian medical gazette.

[14]  Biing-Hwang Juang,et al.  Fundamentals of speech recognition , 1993, Prentice Hall signal processing series.

[15]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  Evaluation techniques for biometrics-based authentication systems (FRR) , 2000, Proceedings 15th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. ICPR-2000.