To Impute or Not: Recommendations for Multibiometric Fusion
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper examines the trade-offs between imputing missing biometric data versus ignoring it in multibiometric fusion systems.
- It provides recommendations on when to impute missing data and when to simply discard it to optimize system performance.
- The research explores various imputation techniques and their impact on the accuracy, reliability, and computational complexity of multibiometric fusion.
Plain English Explanation
Biometric systems like fingerprint or facial recognition often use multiple biometric traits (e.g., fingerprint and face) to improve accuracy. However, in real-world scenarios, one or more of these traits may be missing due to sensor failures or user cooperation issues.
The paper investigates whether it's better to "impute" (estimate) the missing data, or simply ignore it and make a decision based on the available traits. The researchers tested different imputation methods and found that the benefits of imputation depend on factors like the amount of missing data, the imputation technique used, and the specific application.
In some cases, imputing the missing data can improve the overall system performance. But in other cases, it may actually hurt performance by introducing errors. The paper provides guidance on when to impute versus when to discard missing data to get the best results from multibiometric fusion systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper evaluates the trade-offs between imputing missing biometric data versus ignoring it in the context of multibiometric fusion. It examines the impact of missing data on system accuracy, reliability, and computational complexity.
The researchers tested various imputation techniques, including mean imputation, K-nearest neighbors, and multiple imputation by chained equations. They analyzed how these methods performed compared to discarding missing data, using both synthetic and real-world multibiometric datasets.
The results show that the benefits of imputation depend on factors like the percentage of missing data, the underlying data distribution, and the specific fusion algorithm used. In some cases, imputation improved performance, but in others it led to a degradation in accuracy and reliability.
The paper provides guidelines for practitioners on when to employ imputation versus ignoring missing data to optimize the tradeoffs for their particular multibiometric system and use case.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thoughtful and nuanced analysis of the imputation versus discarding trade-offs in multibiometric fusion. However, it acknowledges several limitations:
- The experiments were limited to specific imputation techniques and fusion algorithms, so the conclusions may not generalize to other methods.
- The analysis focused on accuracy and reliability metrics, but did not consider other important factors like computational cost and system complexity.
- The paper did not explore the impact of different patterns or mechanisms of missing data, which could affect the relative performance of imputation.
Additionally, the paper does not discuss potential biases or fairness implications that could arise from imputing missing biometric data, which is an important consideration for real-world deployment.
Overall, the research offers valuable insights, but further work is needed to fully understand the nuances of this tradeoff and provide comprehensive guidance for multibiometric system designers.
Conclusion
This paper provides a detailed exploration of the tradeoffs between imputing missing biometric data versus discarding it in multibiometric fusion systems. The findings suggest that the optimal approach depends on the specific characteristics of the system and application.
In some cases, imputation can improve overall performance by leveraging the information contained in partially observed biometric samples. However, imputation also carries risks of introducing errors, which can undermine the reliability and trustworthiness of the system.
The paper offers guidance to practitioners on how to evaluate these tradeoffs and make informed decisions about missing data handling strategies. This work is an important contribution to the ongoing research on robust and effective multibiometric fusion techniques.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
To Impute or Not: Recommendations for Multibiometric Fusion
Melissa R Dale, Elliot Singer, Bengt J. Borgstrom, Arun Ross
Combining match scores from different biometric systems via fusion is a well-established approach to improving recognition accuracy. However, missing scores can degrade performance as well as limit the possible fusion techniques that can be applied. Imputation is a promising technique in multibiometric systems for replacing missing data. In this paper, we evaluate various score imputation approaches on three multimodal biometric score datasets, viz. NIST BSSR1, BIOCOP2008, and MIT LL Trimodal, and investigate the factors which might influence the effectiveness of imputation. Our studies reveal three key observations: (1) Imputation is preferable over not imputing missing scores, even when the fusion rule does not require complete score data. (2) Balancing the classes in the training data is crucial to mitigate negative biases in the imputation technique towards the under-represented class, even if it involves dropping a substantial number of score vectors. (3) Multivariate imputation approaches seem to be beneficial when scores between modalities are correlated, while univariate approaches seem to benefit scenarios where scores between modalities are less correlated.
Read more8/16/2024
0
On Missing Scores in Evolving Multibiometric Systems
Melissa R Dale, Anil Jain, Arun Ross
The use of multiple modalities (e.g., face and fingerprint) or multiple algorithms (e.g., three face comparators) has shown to improve the recognition accuracy of an operational biometric system. Over time a biometric system may evolve to add new modalities, retire old modalities, or be merged with other biometric systems. This can lead to scenarios where there are missing scores corresponding to the input probe set. Previous work on this topic has focused on either the verification or identification tasks, but not both. Further, the proportion of missing data considered has been less than 50%. In this work, we study the impact of missing score data for both the verification and identification tasks. We show that the application of various score imputation methods along with simple sum fusion can improve recognition accuracy, even when the proportion of missing scores increases to 90%. Experiments show that fusion after score imputation outperforms fusion with no imputation. Specifically, iterative imputation with K nearest neighbors consistently surpasses other imputation methods in both the verification and identification tasks, regardless of the amount of scores missing, and provides imputed values that are consistent with the ground truth complete dataset.
Read more8/22/2024
🔗
0
Imputation for prediction: beware of diminishing returns
Marine Le Morvan (SODA), Gael Varoquaux
Missing values are prevalent across various fields, posing challenges for training and deploying predictive models. In this context, imputation is a common practice, driven by the hope that accurate imputations will enhance predictions. However, recent theoretical and empirical studies indicate that simple constant imputation can be consistent and competitive. This empirical study aims at clarifying if and when investing in advanced imputation methods yields significantly better predictions. Relating imputation and predictive accuracies across combinations of imputation and predictive models on 20 datasets, we show that imputation accuracy matters less i) when using expressive models, ii) when incorporating missingness indicators as complementary inputs, iii) matters much more for generated linear outcomes than for real-data outcomes. Interestingly, we also show that the use of the missingness indicator is beneficial to the prediction performance, even in MCAR scenarios. Overall, on real-data with powerful models, improving imputation only has a minor effect on prediction performance. Thus, investing in better imputations for improved predictions often offers limited benefits.
Read more7/30/2024
📊
0
Data Imputation by Pursuing Better Classification: A Supervised Kernel-Based Method
Ruikai Yang, Fan He, Mingzhen He, Kaijie Wang, Xiaolin Huang
Data imputation, the process of filling in missing feature elements for incomplete data sets, plays a crucial role in data-driven learning. A fundamental belief is that data imputation is helpful for learning performance, and it follows that the pursuit of better classification can guide the data imputation process. While some works consider using label information to assist in this task, their simplistic utilization of labels lacks flexibility and may rely on strict assumptions. In this paper, we propose a new framework that effectively leverages supervision information to complete missing data in a manner conducive to classification. Specifically, this framework operates in two stages. Firstly, it leverages labels to supervise the optimization of similarity relationships among data, represented by the kernel matrix, with the goal of enhancing classification accuracy. To mitigate overfitting that may occur during this process, a perturbation variable is introduced to improve the robustness of the framework. Secondly, the learned kernel matrix serves as additional supervision information to guide data imputation through regression, utilizing the block coordinate descent method. The superiority of the proposed method is evaluated on four real-world data sets by comparing it with state-of-the-art imputation methods. Remarkably, our algorithm significantly outperforms other methods when the data is missing more than 60% of the features
Read more7/10/2024