Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lorène Allano
dblp:80/4982
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 3 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 1 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
2 papers |
Biometric security · 100% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Biometric security
biometric database |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | The Multiscenario Multienvironment BioSecure Multimodal Database (BMDB) · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2010 |
Biometric security
biometric recognition |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | The Multiscenario Multienvironment BioSecure Multimodal Database (BMDB) · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2010 |
Biometric security › multi-biometric systems
multimodal biometrics |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | The Multiscenario Multienvironment BioSecure Multimodal Database (BMDB) · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2010 |
Biometric security
biometric performance evaluation |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Benchmarking quality-dependent and cost-sensitive score-level multimodal biometric fusion algorithms · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2009 |
Biometric security › biometric fusion
multimodal biometric fusion |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Benchmarking quality-dependent and cost-sensitive score-level multimodal biometric fusion algorithms · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2009 |
Biometric security › biometric fusion
score-level fusion |
0.1 | 1 | 2009 | Benchmarking quality-dependent and cost-sensitive score-level multimodal biometric fusion algorithms · IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2009 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
multimodal fusion · 0.1baseline evaluation · 0.1support vector machine fusion · 0.1quality measurement · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | Alternating Optimization for Lambertian Photometric Stereo Model with Unknown Lighting Directions
Khrystyna Kyrgyzova, Lorène Allano, Michaël Aupetit 0001 |
CAIP (2) | 2 |
| 2012 | A new protocol for multi-biometric systems' evaluation maintaining the dependencies between biometric scores
Lorène Allano, Bernadette Dorizzi, Sonia Garcia-Salicetti |
Pattern Recognit. | 1 |
| 2010 | The Multiscenario Multienvironment BioSecure Multimodal Database (BMDB)abstractA new multimodal biometric database designed and acquired within the framework of the European BioSecure Network of Excellence is presented. It is comprised of more than 600 individuals acquired simultaneously in three scenarios: 1) over the Internet, 2) in an office environment with desktop PC, and 3) in indoor/outdoor environments with mobile portable hardware. The three scenarios include a common part of audio/video data. Also, signature and fingerprint data have been acquired both with desktop PC and mobile portable hardware. Additionally, hand and iris data were acquired in the second scenario using desktop PC. Acquisition has been conducted by 11 European institutions. Additional features of the BioSecure Multimodal Database (BMDB) are: two acquisition sessions, several sensors in certain modalities, balanced gender and age distributions, multimodal realistic scenarios with simple and quick tasks per modality, cross-European diversity, availability of demographic data, and compatibility with other multimodal databases. The novel acquisition conditions of the BMDB allow us to perform new challenging research and evaluation of either monomodal or multimodal biometric systems, as in the recent BioSecure Multimodal Evaluation campaign. A description of this campaign including baseline results of individual modalities from the new database is also given. The database is expected to be available for research purposes through the BioSecure Association during 2008. Javier Ortega-Garcia, Julian Fierrez, Fernando Alonso-Fernandez, Javier Galbally, Manuel R. Freire, Joaquín González-Rodríguez, Carmen García-Mateo, José Luis Alba-Castro, Elisardo González-Agulla, Enrique Otero Muras, Sonia Garcia-Salicetti, Lorène Allano, Van-Bao Ly, Bernadette Dorizzi, Josef Kittler, Thirimachos Bourlai, Norman Poh, Farzin Deravi, Ming W. R. Ng, Michael C. Fairhurst, Jean Hennebert, Andreas Humm, Massimo Tistarelli, Linda Brodo, Jonas Richiardi, Andrzej Drygajlo, Harald Ganster, Federico Sukno, Sri-Kaushik Pavani, Alejandro F. Frangi, Lale Akarun, Arman Savran |
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. | 12 |
| 2010 | Tuning cost and performance in multi-biometric systems: A novel and consistent view of fusion strategies based on the Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT)
Lorène Allano, Bernadette Dorizzi, Sonia Garcia-Salicetti |
Pattern Recognit. Lett. | 1 |
| 2009 | Benchmarking quality-dependent and cost-sensitive score-level multimodal biometric fusion algorithmsabstractAutomatically verifying the identity of a person by means of biometrics (e.g., face and fingerprint) is an important application in our day-to-day activities such as accessing banking services and security control in airports. To increase the system reliability, several biometric devices are often used. Such a combined system is known as a multimodal biometric system. This paper reports a benchmarking study carried out within the framework of the BioSecure DS2 (Access Control) evaluation campaign organized by the University of Surrey, involving face, fingerprint, and iris biometrics for person authentication, targeting the application of physical access control in a medium-size establishment with some 500 persons. While multimodal biometrics is a well-investigated subject in the literature, there exists no benchmark for a fusion algorithm comparison. Working towards this goal, we designed two sets of experiments: quality-dependent and cost-sensitive evaluation. The quality-dependent evaluation aims at assessing how well fusion algorithms can perform under changing quality of raw biometric images principally due to change of devices. The cost-sensitive evaluation, on the other hand, investigates how well a fusion algorithm can perform given restricted computation and in the presence of software and hardware failures, resulting in errors such as failure-to-acquire and failure-to-match. Since multiple capturing devices are available, a fusion algorithm should be able to handle this nonideal but nevertheless realistic scenario. In both evaluations, each fusion algorithm is provided with scores from each biometric comparison subsystem as well as the quality measures of both the template and the query data. The response to the call of the evaluation campaign proved very encouraging, with the submission of 22 fusion systems. To the best of our knowledge, this campaign is the first attempt to benchmark quality-based multimodal fusion algorithms. In the presence of changing image quality which may be due to a change of acquisition devices and/or device capturing configurations, we observe that the top performing fusion algorithms are those that exploit automatically derived quality measurements. Our evaluation also suggests that while using all the available biometric sensors can definitely increase the fusion performance, this comes at the expense of increased cost in terms of acquisition time, computation time, the physical cost of hardware, and its maintenance cost. As demonstrated in our experiments, a promising solution which minimizes the composite cost is sequential fusion, where a fusion algorithm sequentially uses match scores until a desired confidence is reached, or until all the match scores are exhausted, before outputting the final combined score. Norman Poh, Thirimachos Bourlai, Josef Kittler, Lorène Allano, Fernando Alonso-Fernandez, Onkar Ambekar, John P. Baker, Bernadette Dorizzi, Omolara Fatukasi, Julian Fierrez, Harald Ganster, Javier Ortega-Garcia, Donald E. Maurer, Albert Ali Salah, Tobias Scheidat, Claus Vielhauer |
IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. | 4 |
| 2008 | An adaptive multi-biometric incremental fusion strategy in the context of BMEC 2007abstractWe present the general principles of a dynamical sequential fusion strategy for multibiometric systems allowing reducing the cost associated to the use of different modalities while preserving a good performance compared to that of a global fusion system. We have implemented this strategy in the BMEC (BioSecure multimodal evaluation campaign) 2007 cost-sensitive evaluation. We show that this approach was very robust to the occurrence of missing data thanks to its adaptive implementation. Lorène Allano, Sonia Garcia-Salicetti, Bernadette Dorizzi |
ICARCV | 1 |
| 2006 | Multimodality In Biosecure: Evaluation On Real Vs. Virtual SubjectsabstractIn this paper, we present the BioSecure Network of Excellence and its objectives in terms of biometric evaluation. A particular focus is given in this project to multimodal evaluation, which requires special attention due to the lack of large-size available multimodal databases. We show in this paper that the evaluation of score fusion methods for two a priori independent modalities is possible on standard size (roughly 100 persons) virtual databases, but at the price of a careful statistical protocol Bernadette Dorizzi, Sonia Garcia-Salicetti, Lorène Allano |
ICASSP (5) | 3 |