Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ted Dunstone

dblp:51/7992 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 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
1 paper
Biometric security · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Biometric security
biometric performance evaluation
0.112010
The Biometric Menagerie · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2010
Biometric security
biometric recognition
0.112010
The Biometric Menagerie · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2010

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

statistical hypothesis testing · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 The Biometric Menagerie
abstract
It is commonly accepted that users of a biometric system may have differing degrees of accuracy within the system. Some people may have trouble authenticating, while others may be particularly vulnerable to impersonation. Goats, wolves, and lambs are labels commonly applied to these problem users. These user types are defined in terms of verification performance when users are matched against themselves (goats) or when matched against others (lambs and wolves). The relationship between a user's genuine and impostor match results suggests four new user groups: worms, doves, chameleons, and phantoms. We establish formal definitions for these animals and a statistical test for their existence. A thorough investigation is conducted using a broad range of biometric modalities, including 2D and 3D faces, fingerprints, iris, speech, and keystroke dynamics. Patterns that emerge from the results expose novel, important, and encouraging insights into the nature of biometric match results. A new framework for the evaluation of biometric systems based on the biometric menagerie, as opposed to collective statistics, is proposed.
Neil Yager, Ted Dunstone
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.2