See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305867286

Using the beta-binomial distribution for the analysis of biometric

identification

Conference Paper · September 2015

DOI: 10.1109/SISY.2015.7325381

CITATIONS READS

4 112

2 authors:

Gabor Werner Laszlo Hanka

Óbudai Egyetem Óbudai Egyetem
11 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gabor Werner on 28 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SISY 2015 • IEEE 13th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics • September 17–19, 2015, Subotica, Serbia
Using the Beta-Binomial Distribution for the
Analysis of Biometric Identification
Gabor Á. Werner*, László Hanka Ph.D.**
* Applied Biometric Institute, Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary
** Institute of Mechatronics and Autotechnics, Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary
Abstract—In this paper we presented a method which could
be used in the testing process of biometric devices on the
side of users and costumers. The failed events during the
biometrical identification are more common than the
literature data, however there isn’t any standard or widely
accepted manual for the examinations. The conventional
statistical methods use the binomial distribution to estimate
the expected number of failure, but in the field of the
biometrics the probability parameter can’t be constant
which means that it is necessary to describe a process. Our
results have shown that the probability is characterized with
two parameters of the beta distribution, and these are
predictable from a smaller sample of the investigated
population with the maximum-likelihood method.
Keywords—component; biometrics, beta-binomial
distribution, false rejection rate, Bayesian analysis,
maximum likelihood
I. INTRODUCTION
In the biometrical identification the recognition and
authentication of individual identifier pattern (IIP) is
quite complex process. The experiences have shown that
the number of false identifications is high. It is accepted
to use FAR1 – False Acceptance Rate and the FRR2 –
False Rejection Rate) and the ROC3 – Receiver
Operating Characteristic to classify the ’goodness’ of the
operation. However these rates don’t represent the
uncertainties of the operation’s background. According to
the Bayesian analysis the ‘goodness’ is able to qualified
more specifically than the common statistical rates: this is
the beta-binomial distribution, which is a special formula
of binomial distribution, that implicit applies the
parametric gamma function [1].
The logic of biometric identification is different from
the classical RFID or PIN code authentication, thus the
beta-binomial distribution of the recognition’s
1
The false acceptance rate, or FAR, is the measure of the
likelihood that the biometric security system will incorrectly
accept an access attempt by an unauthorized user.
2 the possible events is not constant, but it follows a special
A False Rejection Rate megmutatja, hogy az adott működési
beállítások mellett, egy adott eszköz milyen arányban utasít
vissza belépési jogosultsággal rendelkező személyeket
3
In statistics, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC), or ROC
curve, is a graphical plot that illustrates the performance of a
binary classifier system as its discrimination threshold is varied.
The curve is created by plotting the true positive rate against the
false positive rate at various threshold settings.
978-1-4673-9388-1/15/$31.00©2015 IEEE – 209 –
characteristic is very useful in the practice. Before the era
of the biometrical identification the main question during
the authentication process was that: the given ‘key’,
(RFID chip, PIN code, etc.) “is able to open the lock”?
This ‘key’ was mostly constructed by a binary code. This
code, excluding that how it is encrypted, gives only one
suitable solution which can be totally selective. In
contrast with this in the biometrics it is almost impossible
to find a totally matching pattern. Like Herakleitos said
”You can't step twice into the same river”, because the
nature, including the humans beings is changing all the
time [2].
This uncertainty doesn’t mean that the biometrical
patterns aren’t able to be totally selective. It just needs for
another philosophy instead of the bipolar logic, which
manages the lack of precision and failures. Whether in
the case when it is necessary to calculate with the
failures, it is required as well to estimate the density and
the distribution of the failures. On the market of the
biometrical devices the manufacturers usually report low
discrete numbers (FAR: 0,0001-0,01%, FRR: 0,01-1,0%).
These values effect the daily number of errors which
posteriori are able to estimate with Poisson distribution.
The Poisson distribution in fact is actually a limiting case
of the binomial distribution.
However the priori failure distribution isn’t able to be
approximated with Poisson distribution in biometrics.
Thus the appropriate approximation is neither the Poisson
distribution nor the binomial distribution in the posteriori
failure distribution. To solve this contradiction the model
below have been constructed, which adapted the beta-
binomial distribution to classify the ‘goodness’ of
biometric devices in reality [3].
II. METHODS
A. Mathematical Background of Beta-binomial
Distribution
The beta-binomial distribution is a special type of the
classical binomial distribution, wherein the probability of
distribution. This distribution of the probability parameter
(p) is determined by two parameters (α – alpha, β – beta).
According to the statements of Bayesian analysis it can
be stated: if the a priori distribution is beta, and the
transitional distribution is binomial, than the a posteriori
distribution is also beta [4], [5].
G. Á. Werner and L. Hanka • Using the Beta-Binomial Distribution for the Analysis of Biometric Identification

If the sample size is n, and x means number of the

failures, the probability function can be expressed in the
following way:

(2.1)

The density function of the probability parameter follows

the beta distribution:

(2.2)

The conjugated posteriori beta distribution:

Figure 1. Beta distribution density function if the parameters are equal

(2.3)

The beta function can be expressed by the gamma

function:

(2.4)

Finally, used the (2), (3), (4) after the partially

integration, we got the beta-binomial distribution,
expressed with gamma functions:

(2.5)

It is proven, the parameters (α,β) are determining the
probability parameter of the binomial distribution’s
density function. However, the determination of these
parameters is quite complex. The parameters are specific
for each of the analyzed samples and they’re
characterizing the entire multiplicity. Thus it was
necessary to find an automatic and suitable method to
calculate the parameters in every each of experiments.
As it is shown on Fig. 1, if the α and β parameters are
equal (α=β), then the density function is symmetric. If
both of them equal ‘one’ (α=1, β=1), then the density
function value is constant ‘one’. This means that the
probability parameter can be every single value of the
interval 0-1 with the same possibility, so the a posteriori
distribution is determined only by the normal binomial
distribution [4], [5].
In this paper we’re focusing to the possible rates of
failures, more specifically the probability of the number
of possible failures, whereupon the more the number of
the failures, the less the probability that occurrence. This
is determining an asymmetric shape for the beta
distribution. In this study the value of the parameters
mostly floated around discrete values, like α ~ 1 and β ~
2, which are determining a decreasing density function of
possible number of failures, as it is presented on Fig. 2.
Figure 2. Beta distribution density function if the parameters are
different
B. The Purpuse of the Study
The main goal of this work was that to create an
algorithm which applies the beta-binomial distribution to
modeling the real mathematical background of FAR and
FRR in biometrical identification. In this paper we
presented the entire process of Bayesian analysis from the
sampling till the estimation of the failures in the daily
use. This algorithm was constructed in MATLAB (Matrix
Laboratory) which uses as incoming values the statistical
results of the prior tests. In the prior tests a fingerprint
reader (iEVO) has been tested by eight volunteer.
Unfortunately only four of them have patterns that were
evaluable. The collected results made the database which
has been used as the incoming values.
Actually we were focusing rather to the FRR, than
FAR, because these failures are enough typical and too
common in the everyday use. As we experienced in the
practice, the significantly occurrence of false rejection
leads to the ignoration of biometric access systems and
bypass them. Thus the risk of the impostor's entry is
increasing to significantly higher level than a considered
level with less strict setting of the access point.

– 210 –
 SISY 2015 • IEEE 13th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics • September 17–19, 2015, Subotica, Serbia
The main goal of the Applied Biometrics Institute is to
standardize the examination of biometrical identification
devices, so the market participants can get a more
objective view about the practical effectiveness of these
devices. According to this goal, we used a database which
has been detected in our laboratory.
C. Methodology of the Examination
As we experienced that there isn't any appropriate
methodology for examination, according to this it was
necessary to find one. There have been investigated
statistical methods for easier reproducibility and usage.
The results have shown that the less the number of the
investigated variables the higher the willingness to apply
the method by the side of costumers4. We had to involve
an automatic technique which is easily adoptable in the
practice. The theory of the process is the following:
In the first step it is necessary to pick a representative
sample of the multiplicity. In this case that means a small
group of those employees who are using the investigated
access point. The human identification patterns (HIP) are
not permanent, those are continuously changing in time,
sometimes day by day or person by person. Consequently
the number of the failures is increasing in non-dynamic
systems. To determinate the exact value of failure rates
the examination of these devices has to be regular and
systematic.
With our technique it is possible to establish whether
the devices themselves perform worse (brake down or get
dirty) or just a couple of the users have some trouble with
the access. It is proven there aren't two totally equal
sample in the biometrics, even if they have been recorded
from the same person in the same time. What's more, a
small percentage of the population even isn't able to
identify by fingerprints. The experiments are showing the
higher average age of the users the more failures are
detected [2], [6], [7].
In the field of biometrics we have to count with
continuously changing user attribution and environment,
thus the numbers of the failures (not recognized HIP) are
variable. But this variety is not chaotic, it is possible to
describe by the beta-binomial distribution.
In the conducted experiences we examined how big the
possibility of the failures. Ten tests have been repeated
ten times, and each time we noticed the number of the
failed identification. These rounds were subscribing the
distribution of the possible failures. However we had to
find the method which is able numerically characterize
this distribution. As it was mentioned above this
distribution is the beta distribution, so the exact task in
the second step was that to find the right way to
determine the parameters in each of the beta distributions
at every subject. It is important to highlight, these results
individually are not able to classify the goodness of the
fingerprint reader, just showing whether the methodology
works or not.
In the biometrics those origins of the failures are
investigated which can be caused by reading obstacle
4
Those companies which buy and apply biometrical
identification devices for access systems
– 211 –
(shift, rotation, dirt), disturbances from the environment
(optical, thermal or EM radiation, humidity, dust) and the
inner malfunction of the device (reading, computing,
deciding). Elementary investigation of these failures is
complex and it is another ongoing research, thus in this
paper we were focusing to the aggregation of these
elements, in a black-box model. We made differences
between the failures by the level of the individuals and
tests. But this model might be applicable on the level of
different origins [7].
With the parameters of the Beta distribution it is
possible to calculate the beta-binomial density function
that shows the possibility the different cases of the
failures. The individual density function compared with
the density function of the aggregated data, it is possible
to establish whether there is a subject with very poor
pattern or the device’s gone wrong.
D. Applied Mathematical Methods
For the determination of the Beta parameters we used
the maximum-likelihood method, thus the searched
parameters can be calculated by an extreme value
theorem. We got the Jacobi matrix below (2.6) with the
derivation of the log-likelihood function by the
parameters.
(2.6)
where:
(2.7)
There were more iteration methods investigated to
calculate the constants of the Jacobi matrix (2.6). The
Newton-Raphson method and fix-point iteration weren't
able to use, according to the non-quadratic convergence,
but the Armijo type gradient method’ve solved the
problem of the iteration. The essence of this method is the
examination of the gradient of a non-negative function
(2.8), because the searched extreme value approximation
determined by the highest decreasing of this non-negative
function (2.8). During the approximation it is necessary
to determine two constant (ε,η) in an empirical way. The
examined non-negative function is the following [8], [9]:
(2.8)
G. Á. Werner and L. Hanka • Using the Beta-Binomial Distribution for the Analysis of Biometric Identification
It's well known, the direction of the highest decreasing
is equal with the conjugate gradient, but to avoid the too
big iteration step and to avoid the too small
approximation the criterions below (2.9) have to be true
at the same time. These Armijo-Goldstein criterions
ensure the suitable approximation [9]:
(2.9)
Calculating the iteration with the appropriate ε and η
constant, t0 starting value and reaching the given stopping
criterion (which specifies the distance of the last
approximation step from the previous one) we got the
parameters quite precisely. In this algorithm we sat ε=0.2,
η=2 and the distance in a tenth. After the iteration step we
got the α and β parameters. Used these calculated
parameters in function below (2.10) we got the a
posteriori beta-binomial distribution:
(2.10)
III. RESULTS
A. Experimental methods and results
As it was mentioned before, it is possible to use this
beta-binomial distribution model either in above the
individual level or under that. Thus the practical
probability of malfunctions can be estimated for each of
the users, and it is also able to be estimated for a whole
and complex system, like an access control system of a
stadium. In this paper the chosen level the individual was,
due to comparing the convenience statistical analyzing
with the more practical examinations. For this research an
iEVO micro fingerprint reader has been chosen.5
In this model the definition of the probability variable
in the binomial distribution depends on the detected
number of failures in each test. Originally eight subject
(volunteer) have been used in the tests, but finally only
four of them’s results were able to used in the algorithm.
The rest had trouble with the appropriate usage of the
fingerprint reader. The distribution of the experimented
population is shown below on Table 1.
As it has shown in the Table 1, the rate of the failures
during the recognition (FRR) is about 20% (83 out of
400). This is signficantly higher than the manufacturer
reported (~0,1%).
5
The manufacturer gave the original (empirical) data for
characterize the goodness of the device; FRR<0,1% and
FAR<0,00001%
– 212 –
Table 1. Distribution of the experimented population
According to the Applied Biometric Institute's
experiences the significant difference between these
values could be occured by the different testing method.
There isn't any international testing standard for
biometric devices and even if a manufacturer
conscientiously tests its products on a bigger population,
it doesn't mean that the devices will work with the given
parameters in practice. This ungracious fact involves a
new testing method in the biometrics on the side of
clients. The method should calculate with smaller
population, and the attribution of small population failure,
which is actually implemented in the investigated method
above.
According to the beta-binomial parameters it is
possible to estimate the probabilty of each failure cases
(e.g. one, two, or more faiulre in a ten size sampple), and
even possible to give the expacted value and dispersion of
the distribution. This is a more exact numerical detail
about the biometric device than the conventional FRR
value which is calculated by the eq. 3.1 below [10]:
(3.1)
where: k is the minimum number of minutiae to access,
and p is the probability of failure of the recognition.
In contrast with the FRR the expected values and the
variance of the beta-binomial distribution is the
following:
(3.2)
According to Balogh and Hanka publication, we've
examined the applied Bayesian analyses and the
conventional statistical methods. They've stated if p is the
non expected event probability and it is characterized by
beta distribution than the prior estimation of the expected
value is the following [4], [10]:
(3.3)
 SISY 2015 • IEEE 13th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics • September 17–19, 2015, Subotica, Serbia

After while there have been observed n different event, Table 2. Number of the failure in the tests
the number of the adverse events is x, and so the number
SUBJECT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUM
of the not false identification is n-x, the corrected
equation is the following [4], [10]: I. subject 4 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 29

II. subject 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

III. subject 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 32

IV. subject 2 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 18
(3.2)
av. 3,75 1,5 1,25 0,5 1 0,75 0,75 0,25 0,25 0 0 20,75

It has shown, if we estimate the expected value, that sum. 15 6 5 2 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 83

depends on the α and β parameters, thus the probability is
finally estimated with beta distribution. In contrast with
this, if n is a significantly higher value, the conventional
statistical equation (probability is equal the appropriate
events per all events) will characterize the distribution.
According again to Balogh and Hanka this means that
if we have a huge amount of measure data, than the prior
beta distribution less and less dominates, and it will less
effect on the posterior distribution. Finally, if n→∞, then
the posterior estimation's failure decreases, because the
variance correlates to zero. Thus the uncertainty of
posterior estimation is decreasing in this highlighted area
[4], [10].
B. Evaluation of the results
All these above have a relevant importance in the
practice, due to the experienced values on the side of the Followed the implemented method above, the beta
users and customers, and the given parameters on the side parameters were calculated for each user and for the
of the manufacturers are not in the same order of summarized data either, the average value is added as
magnitudes. well. In Figure 3 we presented the calculated beta
The uncertainty is able to estimate well with the distribution density functions.
Doddington method. It says that on the level 90% of
confidence it is necessary to notice at least 30 failures to
the looked for p probability be in the primarily calculated
value within 30%. In this case on 90% level of
confidence with 0,1% FRR we need for 30 000 try. This
huge number of tries is hardly achievable in the
laboratory, and absolutely impossible in the practice on
the side of the customers [11].
According to the laboratory results, beyond that the
orders of the magnitudes are different in the various
approaches, that should be known how looks like the
characteristic of the distribution of the fails. As it was
mentioned above, a failure during the identification6
method could easily happen as a consequence of the
superposition of each failure factors. A simple failure can
be tolerated in the intensive daily use, but if the FRR
significantly increases, then the effectiveness of the
device brakes down, which could lead in a marginal case
to turning off. In our tests we got the results below. Each
test was repeated ten times per each user, so the Table 2
shows how many times occurred 0, 1, 2 or more failure in
each test which contains ten try.

Figure 3. Beta distribution density functions in the experimental results

That has to be stated we got significantly different

density functions in the experience, if the number of the
6
the whole process, from the detection till the decision called investigated subjects is growing then the average value
identification in this terminology

– 213 –
G. Á. Werner and L. Hanka • Using the Beta-Binomial Distribution for the Analysis of Biometric Identification

and summed value’s parameters is getting closer. In Figure 5, we’ve shown the cumulated density functions
According to the discrete values it would be highly for the better view.
suggested to repeat the tests on bigger population.
As a trend we can highlight the followings: all the test
when the number of the failure is zero or quite small is
significantly higher than the more times failed. The usual
statistic uses the binomial distribution to estimate the
average number of failures. To compare the conventional
method with this examined method we used the average
number of the experienced failures as parameter p in the
binomial equation.
As far as that has been shown in Figure 4 between the
density functions the difference is significant. In the beta-
binomial method the probability of zero failures is about
35%, in contrast with the normal binomial method, where
it is 10-15%. Although the tests were done on a smaller
population, the necessary minimal failed events have
been detected on 99% level of confidence, according to
the Doddington formula. In the testing of smaller
populations usually the deformity means that the
experienced failure number is smaller than the
statistically expected. The Doddington formula helps to
correcting this deformity. So the problem that origins
from the small population slightly corrected, thus we
could focus to compare the significant difference between
the normal binomial and beta-binomial distribution.
Figure 5. Experimental cumulated density functions

On the figures above we’ve shown continuous lines,

but it is necessary to emphasize we have counted with
discrete rational numbers, so maybe it is better if we
present a summed diagram (Figure 6) with the discrete
numbers. It is notable the different methods almost the
same at failure number two. The beta binomial method
gives a higher probability when the experienced number
less than two, which slowly decreases after the second
failure. This means that it is more possible to have zero,
one or two failure is we apply the beta-binomial
distribution to the estimation.

Figure 4. Experimental density functions in binomial and beta-binomial

distribution

It has to be emphasized the (except the subject nr. 2.)

the maximum of the density functions are not at
minimum of failures, therefore if we applied the binomial
distribution to estimate the number of the occurred
failures we would get the highest probability around 1-3. Figure 6. Final probability values in the different methods (average of
the subjects and the accumulated cases)

– 214 –
 SISY 2015 • IEEE 13th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics • September 17–19, 2015, Subotica, Serbia

C. Summary of the results [3] Carl Young, Metrics and Methods for Security Risk Management,
pp. 105. Syngress, 2010.
In the Applied Biometric Institute we attempted to [4] I. Fazekas, Probability and Statistic, University of Debrecen,
implement an innovative method for a clear and practical 2004.
testing process of the biometric devices. According to our [5] Dan Navarro, Amy Perfors, An introduction to the Beta-Binomial
experiences, we assumed that there is a method which model, COMPSCI 3016: Computational Cognitive Science,
University of Adelaide
can be further used to analyze the goodness of the
[6] Mike Silverman, Tony Thompson, Written in Blood, Transworld,
identification, because the difference is significant 2014.
between the practical and theoretic FRR. [7] Anil Jain, Lin Hong, Sharath Pankanti, Biometric Identification,
We hypothesized that the fail rejection’s distribution Magazine Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 Issue 2, Feb.
follows a binomial distribution where the probability of 2000
each failure is describable by beta distribution. Thus after [8] Larry Armijo, Minimization of Functions Having Lipschitz
Continuous Fist Partial Derivates, Pacific Journal of
the Bayesian analysis the posteriori formula follows beta- Mathematics, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1966
binomial distribution, and it is characterized by two [9] Alessandro Astolfi, Optimization, handout pp. 25-27, London,
parameters (alpha, beta). These parameters are 2009.
predictable from a sample of the user population. [10] Zs. Balogh, László Hanka, Bayesian Analyzes in the Risk
To determinate the parameters, we wrote a MATLAB Asessment, Application of Discrete Probability Distributions,
Statements in Aeronautics, vol. XXV. 2013/02
program which implements the Armijo gradient formula
[11] László Hanka, Mathematical Methods in Biometrics, University of
to the extreme-value calculation of the maximum- Óbuda, 2012.
likelihood estimation. As the parameters are determined it
is easy to calculate the density and the distribution
functions. To demonstrate the differences, the normal
binomial and the beta-binomial distribution have been
compared with each other.
In this study the normal binomial distribution’s
maximum has been given at exactly two failure in
contrast with beta-binomial distribution, in which its
maximum is at zero failure and the function monotone
decreases.
Finally we have found that the failed rejection depends
on more variables, for which doesn’t exist an explicit
formula. Because the failures come from different set of
mistakes and statistical uncertainty, so the normal
binomial fail estimation isn’t able to lead to the right
consequences. We’ve chosen a distribution to the p
probability, instead of the constant. With this
methodology it is possible to characterize a biometric
device on smaller sample from a population.
I. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the experiences it may be stated that to
characterize the biometric devices the implemented
mathematical apparatus has to be considered. The given
data and characteristics by the manufacturers usually
aren’t in the same order of magnitudes with the
experienced ones in the practice.
While the manufacturer performs their own testing
processes, there is not any standard to characterize the
biometric devices, thus there is a necessity to investigate
these tools on side of the customers and users. The
method that have been shown in this study may be
involved the testing processes.
According to the experiences that could be stated the
beta-binomial distribution in contrast with the normal
binomial distribution is closer to the reality and gives
more accurate results.
REFERENCES
[1] D. C. Hitchcock, Evaluation and Combination of Biometric
Authentication System, University of Florida, 2003.
[2] Anil K. Jain, Arun Rossm, Multibiometric Systems, in
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2004/Vol. 47, No. 1

– 215 –

View publication stats