Utility-based performance evaluation of biometric sample quality measures

Abstract The quality score of a biometric sample is intended to predict the sample’s degree of utility for biometric recognition. Different authors proposed different definitions for utility. A harmonized definition of utility would be useful to facilitate the comparison of biometric sample quality assessment algorithms. In this article, we compare different definitions of utility and apply them to both face image and fingerprint image data sets containing multiple samples per biometric instance and covering a wide range of potential quality issues. The results differ only slightly. We show that discarding samples with low utility scores results in rapidly declining false non-match rates. The obtained utility scores can be used as target labels for training biometric sample quality assessment algorithms and as baseline when summarizing utility-prediction performance in a single plot or even in a single figure of merit.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing
Published
2024-09-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13640-024-00644-1
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Biometric Identification and Security
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.70

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Utility-based performance evaluation of biometric sample quality measures

Olaf Henniger, Biying Fu, Alexander Kurz
2 citations
EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing
Biometric Identification and Security
0.70
article

Utility-based performance evaluation of biometric sample quality measures

Olaf Henniger, Biying Fu, Alexander Kurz
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract The quality score of a biometric sample is intended to predict the sample’s degree of utility for biometric recognition. Different authors proposed different definitions for utility. A harmonized definition of utility would be useful to facilitate the comparison of biometric sample quality assessment algorithms. In this article, we compare different definitions of utility and apply them to both face image and fingerprint image data sets containing multiple samples per biometric instance and covering a wide range of potential quality issues. The results differ only slightly. We show that discarding samples with low utility scores results in rapidly declining false non-match rates. The obtained utility scores can be used as target labels for training biometric sample quality assessment algorithms and as baseline when summarizing utility-prediction performance in a single plot or even in a single figure of merit.

EURASIP Journal on Image and Video ProcessingVol. 2024(1)
Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Research (DE), Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
Hessisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst, Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Biometric Identification and Security
0.70
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Utility-based performance evaluation of biometric sample quality measures — Olaf Henniger, Biying Fu, et al. · EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS