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.

[1]  Arun Ross,et al.  Feature level fusion of hand and face biometrics , 2005, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[2]  Samy Bengio,et al.  Significance Tests for \em Bizarre Measures in 2-Class Classification Tasks , 2004 .

[3]  Javier Ortega-Garcia,et al.  Kernel-based multimodal biometric verification using quality signals , 2004, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[4]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  Biometrics, Personal Identification in Networked Society: Personal Identification in Networked Society , 1998 .

[5]  Ludmila I. Kuncheva,et al.  A Theoretical Study on Six Classifier Fusion Strategies , 2002, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[6]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  Error analysis of pattern recognition systems - the subsets bootstrap , 2004, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[7]  Christopher M. Bishop,et al.  Neural networks for pattern recognition , 1995 .

[8]  Xudong Jiang,et al.  Exploiting global and local decisions for multimodal biometrics verification , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[9]  Jiri Matas,et al.  On Combining Classifiers , 1998, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[10]  Jean-Philippe Thiran,et al.  The BANCA Database and Evaluation Protocol , 2003, AVBPA.

[11]  Roberto Brunelli,et al.  Person identification using multiple cues , 1995, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[12]  Vladimir Vapnik,et al.  Statistical learning theory , 1998 .

[13]  R. Pearl Biometrics , 1914, The American Naturalist.

[14]  Samy Bengio,et al.  The expected performance curve: a new assessment measure for person authentication , 2004, Odyssey.

[15]  Arun Ross,et al.  Information fusion in biometrics , 2003, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[16]  H. Chandler Database , 1985 .

[17]  Samy Bengio,et al.  Improving Single Modal and Multimodal Biometric Authentication Using F-ratio Client-Dependent Normalisation , 2004 .

[18]  Samy Bengio,et al.  Database, protocols and tools for evaluating score-level fusion algorithms in biometric authentication , 2006, Pattern Recognit..

[19]  Arun Ross,et al.  Score normalization in multimodal biometric systems , 2005, Pattern Recognit..

[20]  Hong Yan,et al.  Comparison of face verification results on the XM2VTFS database , 2000, Proceedings 15th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. ICPR-2000.

[21]  A. Ross,et al.  Level Fusion Using Hand and Face Biometrics , 2005 .