mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Considerations on the Evaluation of Biometric Quality Assessment Algorithms

arXiv 2303.13294 ↗First posted 23 Mar 2023cs.CVcited by 16

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Quality assessment algorithms can be used to estimate the utility of a biometric sample for the purpose of biometric recognition. "Error versus Discard Characteristic" (EDC) plots, and "partial Area Under Curve" (pAUC) values of curves therein, are generally used by researchers to evaluate the predictive performance of such quality assessment algorithms. An EDC curve depends on an error type such as the "False Non Match Rate" (FNMR), a quality assessment algorithm, a biometric recognition system, a set of comparisons each corresponding to a biometric sample pair, and a comparison score threshold corresponding to a starting error. To compute an EDC curve, comparisons are progressively discarded based on the associated samples' lowest quality scores, and the error is computed for the remaining comparisons. Additionally, a discard fraction limit or range must be selected to compute pAUC values, which can then be used to quantitatively rank quality assessment algorithms. This paper discusses and analyses various details for this kind of quality assessment algorithm evaluation, including general EDC properties, interpretability improvements for pAUC values based on a hard lower error limit and a soft upper error limit, the use of relative instead of discrete rankings, stepwise vs. linear curve interpolation, and normalisation of quality scores to a [0, 100] integer range. We also analyse the stability of quantitative quality assessment algorithm rankings based on pAUC values across varying pAUC discard fraction limits and starting errors, concluding that higher pAUC discard fraction limits should be preferred. The analyses are conducted both with synthetic data and with real face image and fingerprint data, with a focus on general modality-independent conclusions for EDC evaluations. Various EDC alternatives are discussed as well.

Key facts. Cited by 16 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Mar 2023.

Builds on

10 of 31 references.

References · 10

  1. 2017VGGFace2: A dataset for recognising faces across pose and agecited by 914
  2. 2014Learning Face Representation from Scratchcited by 453
  3. 2021MagFace: A Universal Representation for Face Recognition and Quality Assessmentcited by 334
  4. 2020SER-FIQ: Unsupervised Estimation of Face Image Quality Based on Stochastic Embedding Robustnesscited by 112
  5. 2020Face Image Quality Assessment: A Literature Surveycited by 80
  6. 2021CR-FIQA: Face Image Quality Assessment by Learning Sample Relative Classifiabilitycited by 69
  7. 2018Low-Resolution Face Recognitioncited by 64
  8. 2018ArcFace: Additive Angular Margin Loss for Deep Face Recognitioncited by 56
  9. 2017Robust Minutiae Extractor: Integrating Deep Networks and Fingerprint Domain Knowledgecited by 13
  10. 2021MiDeCon: Unsupervised and Accurate Fingerprint and Minutia Quality Assessment based on Minutia Detection Confidencecited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 10.

16 papers.

Sort:

By area: