doi:10.1016/S0167-8655(03)00079-5
Copyright © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Information fusion in biometrics
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Michigan State University, 3115 Engineering Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Available online 21 May 2003.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must
purchase this article.
Abstract
User verification systems that use a single biometric indicator often have to contend with noisy sensor data, restricted degrees of freedom, non-universality of the biometric trait and unacceptable error rates. Attempting to improve the performance of individual matchers in such situations may not prove to be effective because of these inherent problems. Multibiometric systems seek to alleviate some of these drawbacks by providing multiple evidences of the same identity. These systems help achieve an increase in performance that may not be possible using a single biometric indicator. Further, multibiometric systems provide anti-spoofing measures by making it difficult for an intruder to spoof multiple biometric traits simultaneously. However, an effective fusion scheme is necessary to combine the information presented by multiple domain experts. This paper addresses the problem of information fusion in biometric verification systems by combining information at the matching score level. Experimental results on combining three biometric modalities (face, fingerprint and hand geometry) are presented.
Author Keywords: Biometrics; Multimodal; Fingerprints; Face; Hand geometry; Verification; Decision tree; Linear discriminant analysis; Sum rule
Fig. 1. Examples of some of the biometric traits associated with an individual: (a) fingerprint, (b) face, (c) hand geometry, (d) signature, (e) iris and (f) voice.
Fig. 2. A bimodal biometric system showing the three levels of fusion (FU: fusion module, MM: matching module, DM: decision module).
Fig. 3. The problem of face detection is compounded by the effects of complex lighting and cluttered background.
Fig. 4. A compact solid-state sensor and a sample fingerprint acquired by the sensor. The sensor is about the size of a postage stamp.
Fig. 5. A fingerprint image with the core and four minutiae points labeled.
Fig. 6. A hand geometry system. The sensor provides both the top and side views of the subject’s hand. Features are extracted using the image of the top-view only. (a) GUI for capturing hand geometry. The five pegs aid in proper placement of the hand on the platen. (b) 14 hand features corresponding to various length and width measurements.
Fig. 7. Scatter plot showing the genuine and impostor scores in three-dimensional space. The points correspond to 500 genuine scores (+) and 12,250 impostor scores (○).
Fig. 8. ROC curves showing the performance of each of the three individual modalities.
Fig. 9. ROC curves showing an improvement in performance when scores are combined using the sum rule: (a) combining face and fingerprint scores and (b) combining face and hand geometry scores.
Fig. 10. ROC curves showing an improvement in performance when scores are combined using the sum rule: (a) combining fingerprint and hand geometry scores and (b) combining face, fingerprint and hand geometry scores.
Fig. 11. Construction and performance of the C5.0 decision tree on one specific partition of the training and test sets. The performance is indicated by confusion matrices.
Fig. 12. Linear discriminant analysis of the score vectors. The score vectors have been plotted in a two-dimensional space representing the first and the second discriminant variables. There are 250 genuine score vectors (+) and 11,125 impostor score vectors (○).
Table 1. Performance of the linear discriminant classifier on three different trials as indicated by the confusion matrices

In each trial the training and test sets were partitioned differently.