Decision Fusion for Multimodal Biometrics Using Social Network Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents for the first time decision fusion for multimodal biometric system using social network analysis (SNA). The main challenge in the design of biometric systems, at present, lies in unavailability of high-quality data to ensure consistently high recognition results. Resorting to multimodal biometric partially solves the problem, however, issues with dimensionality reduction, classifier selection, and aggregated decision making remain. The presented methodology successfully overcomes the problem through employing novel decision fusion using SNA. While several types of feature extractors can be used to reduce the dimension and identify significant features, we chose the Fisher Linear Discriminant Analysis as one of the most efficient methods. Social networks are constructed based on similarity and correlation of features among the classes. The final classification result is generated based on the two levels of decision fusion methods. At the first level, individual biometrics (face or ear or signature) are classified using matching score methodology. SNA is used to reinforce the confidence level of the classifier to reduce the error rate. In the second level, outcomes of classification based on individual biometrics are fused together to obtain the final decision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".