Integration Information by sofiaie


									         Chapter 11

Integration Information
   Instructor: Prof. G. Bebis
     Represented by Reza

            Fall 2005
• Introduction
• Integration methods
• Decision level integration
  – Boolean combination
  – Binning and filtering
  – Dynamic authentication protocols
• Score level integration
  – Normal distributions
  – Degenerate cases
  – From threshold to boundaries
• Alternative
• For many application there are non-biometric sources of
  information that can be used in person authentication.

• Using a single biometric is not sufficiently secure or does
  not provide sufficient coverage of the user population.

• Question: How do we integrate multiple biometric
  sources of information to make the application more
  accurate and more secure?
               Integration methods
• There are many different methods that can be used to expand a
  biometric system:
   –   Multiple biometrics: Face image and voiceprint
   –   Multiple location: Left and right iris
   –   Multiple sensing: Three tries of index finger
   –   Multiple sensors: Ultrasonic and optical sensing
   –   Multiple matchers: Minutia and correlation fingerprint matcher
   –   Multiple token: Adding possession and/or knowledge

• An example using multiple biometrics:
                 Integration methods
•   Regardless of the methods, there are tow basic approaches to combination
    information from different sources:
      – Tightly coupled integration:
         • A strong interaction among the input measurements and integration schemes.
     – Loosely coupled integration:
         • There is no interaction among inputs and integration occurs at the output.

                    A tightly coupled system       A loosely coupled system
          Integration methods
• Loosely coupled integration systems
  – Simpler to implement
  – More feasible in commonly confronted integration
• One could try to integrate the biometrics at tow
  – Decision level
  – Score level
       Decision level integration
• Decision level integration (fusion) is typically concerned
  with multiple matchers method.
• Methods:
   – Boolean combination
   – Binning and filtering
   – Dynamic authentication protocols
• Note that in this context, the matchers are considered as
  block box and each output is simply a “Yes/No”.
           Boolean combination
• The AND rule and the OR rule:
   – the most prevalent rules for multiple biometrics combination in
     practical systems.

   – Used in both Identification and Verification protocol.
        Boolean combination
• OR
  – Improve convenience (lower the FRR)
  – Improve security (lower FAR)
           Binning and Filtering
• The capability of a biometric 1:many search of a
  database is a prerequisite.
• Performing N biometric 1:1 matches :
   – Advantage:
      • Simple way.
   – Disadvantage: (When N, the size of the database, becomes
      • High computational cost
      • High False Positive Rate and large candidate list (FPR N)
• Constraining the search with parametric (non-
  biometric) data is called “filtering”.
  – Filtering down the search of N by, say, a subject’s
  – Filtering is an authentication protocol
              (Possession, Biometric)=(P, B)=(name, B)
     • Search the database N of enrolled subjects by surname
     • Search the subjects with matching surname P by matching
       input sample biometric B
• Constraining the search with additional biometric
  data is referred to as “binning”.
  – The best known instance is first classify the type of
    fingerprint and then match the minutia of fingerprint
  – Authentication protocol:
                                     B, B
     • Select those subjects in database N whose biometric
       template matches biometric B’
     • Match the input biometric template B with the templates of
       those remaining subjects to find those subjects in N with both
       matching B’ and B
            Binning and Filtering
• Penetration rate or filter rate:
                        E (# of times B is matched)
                  Ppr 
• Binning error rate Pbe is the percentage of subjects in the
  data base that are missed classify
• Possession token can be added to an existing
  authentication protocol:
   – Negative identification
       • Decrease the chance of False Positive
       • Increase the probability of False Negative dramatically
   – Positive identification
       • Does not decrease the biometric verification error rates
  Dynamic authentication protocols
• One dynamic protocol for speaker verification is the idea
  of conversational biometrics
• Conversational biometrics does a biometric match
  between the speech sample B and the voiceprint Bm and
  a knowledge match between the collected responses
  through speech recognition and the knowledge K m
         Score level integration
• Loosely coupled integration at score level integration
• Assumption:
   – Scores are normalized sa , sb  0,1
   – B is the measurements of biometric a and b
          Score level integration
• Principle cases:
   – The scores ( sa , sb )are monotonically related to the likelihood P(dm B)
   – The scores ( sa , sb )are related to the likelihood P(dm B) in more
     complex fashion
• Given ground truth marked data, it is possible to
  determine a function which relates ( sa , sb ) to P(dm B)
   – Using ground truth data to estimate joint probability density
     function P(sa , sb Ho ) and P(sa , sb H a )
   – Example: Prabhakar and Jain estimate the conditional densities
     using non-parametric estimation method

                                        P( sa , sb H o )
                           P(d m B) 
                                        P( sa , sb H a )
                    Normal distribution
• Approximation of the curve G
  with a linear function
      G ( sa , sb )  sa  (1   ) sb  T
• This approximation is correct
  only when both and s a are s b
  normally distributed.
     – If we assume that s aand               s b are
       independent, the above
       equation becomes:
                                sa          sb
             G ( s a , sb )            
                                   2
                                    a        b2
           Normal distribution
• Problems:
  – The covariance matrix is assumed to be diagonal.
    This is good if disparate biometrics are used.
  – Modeling match scores with Gaussian is not realistic
     • Solution: Use of a Gaussian model for the probability
       distribution of the distance between two biometric templates
         – Simple example:     Dist ( B, Bm )  1  s( B, Bm )
                                                     1  d  Em   
                                                                
                                            1        2  m       
                                P(d )          e                

                                           2 

                Em  E ( Dist ( B, Bm ))          m   ( Dist ( B, Bm ))
                Degenerate cases
• If  a   b then
         G ( sa ,0)             T
                            2

• If  b   a then
          G (0, sb )            T
                            2

• It means biometric a does
  not contribute much to
  class separation.
  From thresholds to boundaries
• Question: Is there any way to
  estimate some decision
• Answer: Drive estimates of the
  match and mismatch score
  cumulative distributions from
  training data and determine
  operating point T that satisfy
  the design criteria.
• Assume that we have the
  cumulative match score
  distribution F ( sa , sb )                             FAR( sa , sb )  
                                     G( sa , sb )  
                                                    1  FAR( sa , sb )  1    T
  and the cumulative mismatch
  score distribution G ( sa , sb )
  From thresholds to boundaries
• FR estimates are now the
  value of
           F ( sa , sb ) along the
  curve G(sa , sb )  T
• The FRR are given by
        k k
       F ( sa , sb ) , k  1,..., K
• A multi biometric system
  should not just be
  associated with one FAR
  and one FRR but with one
  FAR and a sequence of FRR k
• The OR and AND rules for combining two decisions are
  the only way
• When more than two decision are need to be combined
  the choice of fusion is not merely limited to applying an
  overall OR and AND rules to all decision
• Another method is voting
• Kittler and Alkoot have shown that score combination
  strategy are superior when the individual matcher scores
  follow Gaussian distribution and voting is superior when
  scores distribution are heavy tailed

To top