Score reliability based weighting technique for score-level fusion in multi-biometric systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of multiple matchers heavily influence the recognition accuracy of a multi-biometric system under the simple sum-rule-based score-level fusion. In this paper, a weighting technique, referred to as score reliability based weighting (SRBW) technique, is developed to estimate weights for the matchers in order to improve the recognition rate of multi-biometric systems at the score level. In the proposed technique, the reliabilities are computed directly from the raw matching scores obtained from the individual matchers. The proposed weighting technique does not require a priori knowledge of the rankings of matching scores, or the equal error rates, or the genuine/impostor score distributions of the individual matchers used in the system. The experimental results show that the performance of a multi-biometric system using the proposed weighting technique is superior to that of the uni-biometric systems or to that of the multi-biometric systems using the existing weighting techniques in terms of equal error rate and genuine acceptance rate at 1% false acceptance rate.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it