A Comprehensive Re-Evaluation of Biometric Modality Properties in the Modern Era

TL;DR

This paper re-evaluates biometric modality properties using expert surveys and dataset analysis to reflect recent technological advances and vulnerabilities, providing an updated framework for biometric system assessment.

Contribution

It introduces a modern evaluation of biometric modalities based on expert insights and empirical data, updating the outdated 1998 framework with current technological and vulnerability considerations.

Findings

Face recognition ratings improved due to technological progress.

Fingerprint reliability decreased because of emerging vulnerabilities.

Strong alignment between expert assessments and dataset uncertainty.

Abstract

The rapid advancement of authentication systems and their increasing reliance on biometrics for faster and more accurate user verification experience, highlight the critical need for a reliable framework to evaluate the suitability of biometric modalities for specific applications. Currently, the most widely known evaluation framework is a comparative table from 1998, which no longer adequately captures recent technological developments or emerging vulnerabilities in biometric systems. To address these challenges, this work revisits the evaluation of biometric modalities through an expert survey involving 24 biometric specialists. The findings indicate substantial shifts in property ratings across modalities. For example, face recognition, shows improved ratings due to technological progress, while fingerprint, shows decreased reliability because of emerging vulnerabilities and attacks. Further analysis of expert agreement levels across rated properties highlighted the consistency of the provided evaluations and ensured the reliability of the ratings. Finally, expert assessments are compared with dataset-level uncertainty across 55 biometric datasets, revealing strong alignment in most modalities and underscoring the importance of integrating empirical evidence with expert insight. Moreover, the identified expert disagreements reveal key open challenges and help guide future research toward resolving them.