Advertisement

An Experimental Analysis of the Relationship between Biometric Template Update and the Doddington’s Zoo: A Case Study in Face Verification

  • Ajita Rattani
  • Gian Luca Marcialis
  • Fabio Roli
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5716)

Abstract

The problem of biometric template representativeness has recently attracted much attention with the introduction of several template update methods. Automatic template update methods adapt themselves to the intra-class variations of the input data. However, it is possible to hypothesize that the effect of template updating may not be the same for all the clients due to different characteristics of clients present in the biometric database. The goal of this paper is to investigate this hypothesis by explicitly partitioning clients into different groups of the “Doddington’s zoo” as a function of their “intrinsic” characteristics, and studying the effect of state of art template “self update” procedure on these different groups. Experimental evaluation on Equinox database with a case study on face verification system based on EBGM algorithm shows the strong evidence of non-uniform update effects on different clients classes and suggest to modify the update procedures according to the client’s characteristics.

Keywords

Face Image Biometric System User Population Biometric Template Client Class 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Roli, F., Didaci, L., Marcialis, G.L.: Adaptative Biometric Systems that Can Improve with Use. In: Ratha, N., Govindaraju, V. (eds.) Advances in Biometrics: Sensors, Systems and Algorithms, pp. 447–471. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jain, A.K., Flynn, P., Ross, A.: Handbook of Biometrics. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Uludag, U., Ross, A., Jain, A.K.: Biometric template selection and update: a case study in fingerprints. Pattern Recognition 37(7), 1533–1542 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jiang, X., Ser, W.: Online Fingerprint Template Improvement. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 24(8), 1121–1126 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryu, C., Kim, H., Jain, A.K.: Template Adaptation based Fingerprint Verification. In: 18th ICPR 2006, vol. 4, pp. 582–585. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roli, F., Marcialis, G.L.: Semi-supervised PCA-based face recognition using self-training. In: Yeung, D.-Y., Kwok, J.T., Fred, A., Roli, F., de Ridder, D. (eds.) SSPR 2006 and SPR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4109, pp. 560–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, X., Chen, T.H., Thornton, S.M.: Eigenspace updating for non-stationary process and its application to face recognition. Pattern Recognition, 1945–1959 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roli, F., Didaci, L., Marcialis, G.L.: Template co-update in multimodal biometric system. In: Lee, S.-W., Li, S.Z. (eds.) ICB 2007. LNCS, vol. 4642, pp. 1194–1202. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rattani, A., Marcialis, G.L., Roli, F.: Capturing large intra-class variations of biometric data by template co-updating. In: IEEE Workshop on Biometrics, International Conference on Vision and Pattern Recognition, Anchorage, Alaska, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marcialis, G.L., Rattani, A., Roli, F.: Biometric template update: an experimental investigation on the relationship between update errors and performance degradation in face verification. In: da Vitoria Lobo, N., Kasparis, T., Roli, F., Kwok, J.T., Georgiopoulos, M., Anagnostopoulos, G.C., Loog, M. (eds.) S+SSPR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5342, pp. 684–693. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doddington, G., Liggett, W., Martin, A., Przybocki, M., Reynolds, D.: Sheep, goats, lambs and wolves: A statistical analysis of speaker performance, NIST 1998 speaker recognition evaluation. In: Proceedings of ICSLP 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Wiskott, L., Fellows, J.-M., Kruger, N., von der Malsburg, C.: Face Recognition by elastic bunch graph matching, Tech. Report IR-INI 96-08 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poh, N., Kittler, J.: A Methodology for Separating Sheep from Goats for Controlled Enrollment and Multimodal Fusion. In: 6th IEEE Biometric Symposium, Tampa, Florida, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Micklin, A., Watson, C., Ulery, B.: The Myth of Goats: how many people have fingerprints that are hard to match?, Tech. Rep. NISTIR 7271, NIST (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajita Rattani
    • 1
  • Gian Luca Marcialis
    • 1
  • Fabio Roli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of CagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations