Benchmarking Quality-Dependent and Cost-Sensitive Score-Level Multimodal Biometric Fusion Algorithms

TL;DR

This paper presents a benchmarking study of multimodal biometric fusion algorithms focusing on quality-dependent and cost-sensitive evaluations, involving face, fingerprint, and iris modalities for physical access control, with 22 systems submitted.

Contribution

First benchmarking of quality-based multimodal fusion algorithms, addressing real-world challenges like device variability and computational constraints in biometric systems.

Findings

22 fusion systems submitted for evaluation

Fusion algorithms effectively handle quality variability

Benchmark provides insights into real-world biometric fusion performance

Abstract

Automatically verifying the identity of a person by means of biometrics is an important application in day-to-day activities such as accessing banking services and security control in airports. To increase the system reliability, several biometric devices are often used. Such a combined system is known as a multimodal biometric system. This paper reports a benchmarking study carried out within the framework of the BioSecure DS2 (Access Control) evaluation campaign organized by the University of Surrey, involving face, fingerprint, and iris biometrics for person authentication, targeting the application of physical access control in a medium-size establishment with some 500 persons. While multimodal biometrics is a well-investigated subject, there exists no benchmark for a fusion algorithm comparison. Working towards this goal, we designed two sets of experiments: quality-dependent and cost-sensitive evaluation. The quality-dependent evaluation aims at assessing how well fusion algorithms can perform under changing quality of raw images principally due to change of devices. The cost-sensitive evaluation, on the other hand, investigates how well a fusion algorithm can perform given restricted computation and in the presence of software and hardware failures, resulting in errors such as failure-to-acquire and failure-to-match. Since multiple capturing devices are available, a fusion algorithm should be able to handle this nonideal but nevertheless realistic scenario. In both evaluations, each fusion algorithm is provided with scores from each biometric comparison subsystem as well as the quality measures of both template and query data. The response to the call of the campaign proved very encouraging, with the submission of 22 fusion systems. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to benchmark quality-based multimodal fusion algorithms.