The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Score normalization in multimodal biometric systems
Abstract
Multimodal biometric systems consolidate the evidence presented by multiple biometric sources and typically provide better recognition performance compared to systems based on a single biometric modality. Although information fusion in a multimodal system can be performed at various levels, integration at the matching score level is the most common approach due to the ease in accessing and combining the scores generated by different matchers. Since the matching scores output by the various modalities are heterogeneous, score normalization is needed to transform these scores into a common domain, prior to combining them. In this paper, we have studied the performance of different normalization techniques and fusion rules in the context of a multimodal biometric system based on the face, fingerprint and hand-geometry traits of a user. Experiments conducted on a database of 100 users indicate that the application of min-max, z-score, and tanh normalization schemes followed by a simple sum of scores fusion method results in better recognition performance compared to other methods. However, experiments also reveal that the min-max and z-score normalization techniques are sensitive to outliers in the data, highlighting the need for a robust and efficient normalization procedure like the tanh normalization. It was also observed that multimodal systems utilizing user-specific weights perform better compared to systems that assign the same set of weights to the multiple biometric traits of all users.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Turk, M., & Pentland, A. (1991) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1991.3.1.71 · Cited by 13,733
Cited by
Multimodal fusion for multimedia analysis: a survey
Atrey, P. K., Hossain, M. A., El Saddik, A., & Kankanhalli, M. S. (2010) · Multimedia Systems · doi:10.1007/s00530-010-0182-0 · Cited by 1,279
Lian, C., Liu, M., Zhang, J., & Shen, D. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2018.2889096 · Cited by 544
LSTM-Based battery remaining useful life prediction with multi-channel charging profiles
Park, K., Choi, Y., Choi, W. J., Ryu, H.-Y., & Kim, H. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2968939 · Cited by 397
Mirchi, N., Bissonnette, V., Yilmaz, R., Ledwos, N., Winkler-Schwartz, A., & Del Maestro, R. F. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229596 · Cited by 296
Lazarus, J. V., Ratzan, S., Palayew, A., Billari, F. C., Binagwaho, A., Kimball, S., Larson, H. J., Melegaro, A., Rabin, K., White, T. M., et al. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240011 · Cited by 232
Metadata
- Authors
- Jain, A., Nandakumar, K., & Ross, A.
- Venue
- Pattern Recognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2270-2285
- ISSN
- 0031-3203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2061272711
- Cited by
- 2,154
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 97.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Score normalization in multimodal biometric systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.patcog.2005.01.012
- The paper
- Jain, A., Nandakumar, K., & Ross, A. (2005). Score normalization in multimodal biometric systems. Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2005.01.012
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.