Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/1982185.1982189acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fusion in fingerprint authentication: two finger types vs. two scanner types

Published: 21 March 2011 Publication History

Abstract

This paper presents our study on fingerprint fusion in particular in three scenario sets: a) two fingers captured by the same scanner; b) the same finger captured by two different scanners; and c) two fingers both captured by two different scanners. As a test data set we use GUC100 multi-scanner fingerprint database which contains fingerprint images of all ten fingers from 100 subjects using a number of different fingerprint scanners. In total 780 fusion scenarios are studied. Our analysis indicate that score level fusion using average rule provides improvement in all scenarios. The fusion of the same fingers from different scanners appears to provide more performance improvement compared to the fusion of different fingers from the same scanner. Furthermore, we also reveal that fusion of different fingers both collected by different scanners are the best. Interestingly, results suggest that for fusion differences in scanner type are more valuable than differences in finger type.

References

[1]
Neurotechnology's VeriFinger 6.0. http://www.neurotechnology.com/. Last visit: 14.10.2009.
[2]
US-VISIT Program. www.dhs.gov/us-visit. Online access: 03.05.2010.
[3]
ISO/IEC 19794--2: 2005, Information technology - Biometric data interchange formats -- part 2: Finger minutiae data, 2005.
[4]
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 37 Biometrics: Multi-modal and other multi-biometric fusion, 2007.
[5]
F. Alonso-Fernandez, R. N. J. Veldhuis, A. M. Bazen, J. Fierrez-Aguilar, and J. Ortega-Garcia. Sensor interoperability and fusion in fingerprint verification: A case study using minutiae- and ridge-based matchers. In IEEE International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV), 2006.
[6]
J. Fierrez-aguilar, L. Nanni, J. Ortega-Garcia, R. Cappelli, and D. Maltoni. Combining multiple matchers for fingerprint verification: A case study in FVC2004. In International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing, 2004.
[7]
D. Gafurov, P. Bours, B. Yang, and C. Busch. GUC100 multi-scanner fingerprint database for in-house (semi-public) performance and interoperability evaluation. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA), 2010. http://www.nislab.no/guc100.
[8]
D. Gafurov, P. Bours, B. Yang, and C. Busch. GUC100 multisensor fingerprint database for in-house (semipublic) performance test. EURASIP Journal on Information Security, 2010.
[9]
K. Lee, K. R. Park, S. Lee, and J. Kim. Multi-unit biometric fusion in fingerprint verification. In International Conference on Biometric Authentication (ICBA), 2004.
[10]
D. Maltoni, D. Maio, A. Jain, and S. Prabhakar. Handbook of Fingerprint Recognition. Springer, 2009.
[11]
G. L. Marcialis and F. Roli. Fingerprint verification by fusion of optical and capacitive sensors. Pattern Recognition Letters, 2004.
[12]
N. Poh and S. Bengio. How do correlation and variance of base-experts affect fusion in biometric authentication tasks? IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 2005.
[13]
C. Ren, Y. Yin, J. Ma, and G. Yang. A novel method of score level fusion using multiple impressions for fingerprint verification. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2009.
[14]
A. Ross and A. Jain. Biometric sensor interoperability: A case study in fingerprints. In International Workshop BioAW, ECCV, 2004.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SAC '11: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
March 2011
1868 pages
ISBN:9781450301138
DOI:10.1145/1982185
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 March 2011

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

SAC'11
Sponsor:
SAC'11: The 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
March 21 - 24, 2011
TaiChung, Taiwan

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,650 of 6,669 submissions, 25%

Upcoming Conference

SAC '25
The 40th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing
March 31 - April 4, 2025
Catania , Italy

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 186
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 02 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media