A Multi-Biometric System Based on Feature and Score Level Fusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general, the information of multiple biometric modalities is fused at a single level, for example, score level or feature level. The recognition accuracy of a multimodal biometric system may not be improved by carrying fusion at a single level, since one matcher may provide a performance lower than that provided by other matchers. In view of this, we propose a new fusion scheme, referred to as the matcher performance-based (MPb) fusion scheme, in which the fusion is carried out at two levels, feature level, and score level, to improve the overall recognition accuracy. First, we consider the performance of the individual matchers in order to find out which of the modalities should be used for fusion at the feature level. Then, the selected modalities are fused at this level by utilizing their encoded features. Next, we fuse the score obtained from the feature-level fusion with that of the modality for which the performance is the highest. In order to carry out this fusion, a new normalization technique referred to as the overlap extrema-variation-based anchored min-max (OEVBAMM) normalization technique, is also proposed. By considering three modalities, namely, fingerprint, palmprint, and earprint, the performance of the proposed fusion scheme as well as that of the single level fusion scheme, both with various normalization and weighting techniques are evaluated in terms of a number of metrics. It is shown that the multi-biometric system based on the proposed fusion scheme provides the best performance when it employs the new normalization technique and the confidence-based weighting (CBW) method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".