1 / 30

Evaluating Biometric Systems: Measuring Performance and Error Rates

This chapter provides an introduction to evaluating biometric systems, including measuring performance and error rates. It covers technology evaluations, scenario evaluations, operational evaluations, and the comparison of methods.

hillbrian
Download Presentation

Evaluating Biometric Systems: Measuring Performance and Error Rates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Performance Testing“Guide to Biometrics” - chapter 7“An Introduction to Evaluating BiometricSystems” by Phillips et al., IEEE Computer, February 2000, pp 56-63 Presented By: Xavier Palathingal September 21st, 2005

  2. Background • Two biometric capabilities( matching and ranking) and biometric system errors • Chapter 5 – 1:1 Biometric Matching • Chapter 6 – 1:m Biometric Searching • Relate “error quotes” to error definitions • Look at accuracy numbers and reconstruct and interpret them

  3. Overview • Measuring performance • Technology Evaluations • Scenario Evaluations • Operational Evaluations • Comparison of the methods • Limits to Evaluations

  4. Overview (cont…) • Implications of error rates • Biometric Authentication - “Why does it reject me?” • Biometric Screening – “Why does it point to me?” • Face, Finger and Voice • Iris and Hand geometry • Signature • Summary of verification accuracies

  5. Overview (cont…) • Identification System Testing • Biometric data and ROC and CMC • Biometric search engines • 1:m search engine testing • Face Recognition and Verification Test 2000 [ FVRT 2000 ] • FVRT 2002 • Face, Finger and Voice

  6. Measuring Performance Evaluation protocols • Why measure performance ? • Determines how you test the system, select the data and measure performance • Evaluation shouldn’t be too hard or too easy • Is just right when it spreads performance over a range that lets to distinguish

  7. Measuring Performance 1 -Technology Evaluations • On laboratory or prototype algorithms • “testing on databases” • Move from general to specific • “training” data A • Sequestered “test” data Q • Two phases • Training phase • Competitive testing phase

  8. Phase 1 of Technology Evaluation-Training phase • The algorithm is trained using “training” data A = (A1 U A2 U …) • Then tested on newly made available sequestered “test” data Q

  9. Phase 2 of Technology Evaluation - Competitive testing phase • Using database D for each matcher Z, a set of match (genuine) scores X={X1,X2,…,XN} and a set of non-match scores Y={Y1,Y2,….,YN} are generated. • FMR and FNMR [FAR and FRR] are calculatedas a function of threshold T

  10. Measuring Performance 2 - Scenario Evaluations • Tests complete biometric systems under conditions that model real world applications • Combination of sensors and algorithms • “office environment”, “user tests”

  11. Measuring Performance3 - Operational Evaluations • Similar to scenario evaluations • Scenario test – class of applications • Operational test – specific algorithm for a specific application • Performed at the actual site • Using actual subjects/areas • Usually not very repeatable

  12. Comparison of methods • Academia tend to use databases i.e.; technology evaluations • acquisition procedures • user population is closed in scenario evaluations • Not “double blind” – technology and scenario

  13. Limits to evaluation • Biometric authentication should be mandatory to the whole user population • User population should be fairly represented • Subjects should be unaware of the matching decision • Only realistic form of testing is operational evaluation • One cannot measure the true FAR or true FNR – nobody except the actual subject knows • Attempt to measure these “hidden” system parameters will be by trying to defeat the biometric system

  14. Implication of error ratesBiometric Authentication “Why does it reject me?” • Verification protocol – frequent flyer smartcard with biometric - fingerprint template on a smartcard - unique frequent flyer no. and smartcard - FRR = 3% (typical for finger) - 5000 people per hr [Newark airport] in a 14 hr day .03 x 5000 x 14 = 2100 - will have to handled through exception handling procedures

  15. Implication of error ratesBiometric Screening “Why does it point to me?” • Screening protocol – passenger face images with government face image database - a system that checks a face against a negative database N of n=25 alleged terrorists - FPR = 0.1% - 300 people request access to a flight 25 x 300 = 7500 matches 7500 x .001 = 7 false positives

  16. Implication of error ratesBiometric Screening “Why does it point to me?” • The no. of false positives , FPR(n) ≈ n x FPR(1) • Matching a positive data set M of m subjects requires m matches against a database N of n terrorists • m = 300 • n = 25 • # false positives for plane = m x FPR(n) = m x n x FPR(1)

  17. Face , Finger and Voice • Technology evaluations • FARs are operating around 10%

  18. Iris • “normal office environment”, with 200 volunteers over a period of 3 months • In identification mode, not in verification mode • High FRR may be due to environmental error, reflection from glasses, user difficulty

  19. Hand Geometry • Group of 50 users. • 200 volunteers over a 3 month period

  20. Signature • Does not have the characteristic of permanence • Accept = genuine, reject = forgery • Zero-effort forgery, Home-improved forgery, Over-the-shoulder forgery, Professional forgery

  21. Signature (cont….) • Improvement of two-try over one-try indicates poor habituation of the biometric on that particular device

  22. Summary of verification accuracies • Best error rates found in literature • One main thing is the volume

  23. Identification system testing:Biometric data and ROC,CMC • Biometric capabilities like ranking and matching need to be developed by modeling biometric data and training using biometric data • Two different biometric statistics – ROC and CMC • ROC – measures the capabilities of a match engine s(B’,B) with some fixed t0 or as a function of some operating threshold T • CMC – measures the capabilities of a rank engine R((B1,B2),B’l) with ordered entries (B1,B2) € M and some unknown sample B’l

  24. Biometric search engines • A hybrid approach - ranking followed scoring • Input to the 1:m search engine - B’l , the biometric sample • Output - vector CK(B’l) =(ID(1),…ID(K))T • The 1:m search engine with an enrollment database of M is defined as : CK = (B(1),B(2),….,B(K))T = (ID(1),ID(2),…,ID(K))T

  25. Biometric search engines (cont…) • A possible architecture: - A biometric rank engine which determine some reordering Cm of vector M by repeatedly applying ranking - A biometric match engine determine using a scoring function s(B’l,B(k)) and decision threshold t0(B’l),a short candidate vector CK of the K top candidates

  26. 1:m search engine testing • The big distinction of a 1:m search engine compared to a 1:1 matcher - prerequisite of an enrollment database M = (B1,B2,….BM)T • We select the first m samples as database samples [9] • For other samples, denoted as {B’l,l=m+1}= D\M, a rank ř(B’l) is estimated as follows: 1.Computes the sets of scores Xl = {s(B’l,Bi); i = 1,….,m} for l = m + 1

  27. 1:m search engine testing (cont..) 2. Sort these scores: X~l = (s(B’l,B(1)),s(B’l,B(2)),….s(B’l,B(m)))T such that s(B’l,B(k)) > s(B’l,B(k+1)), 1 ≤ k < m 3. If (B’l,B(k)) is the mated pair, i.e., if Bi = B(k) matches B’l, ř(B’l) = k

  28. Face Recognition and Verification Test 2000 • First attempt to characterize performance measures • 5 participating vendors had to compute an all-against-all match of a database of 13,872 face images • Some results: • Compression does not affect performance adversely • Pose changes up to 25 degrees was handled by algorithms, beyond 40 the performance degrades sharply • Images taken 12 or more months apart are difficult to recognize • Distance between camera and person matters a lot • Identification is more sensitive to expression changes than verification is

  29. FRVT 2002 • An increase in database size • Difference in results in plain verification tasks – • K =sorted list size, m =gallery size

  30. Thank you ! Especially to: Dr.Bebis for suggesting the additional paper Reza and Chang for help with the scanner

More Related