BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Lee Friedman

Lee Friedman contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Cryptography and SecurityQuantitative Methods

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

A Re-Examination of the Evidence used by Hooge et al (2018) "Is human classification by experienced untrained observers a gold standard in fixation detection?"

Hooge et al. asked the question: "Is human classification by experienced untrained observers a gold standard in fixation detection?" They conclude the answer is no. If they had entitled their paper: "Is human classification by experienced untrained observers a gold standard in fixation detection when data quality is very poor, data are error-filled, data presentation was not optimal, and the analysis was seriously flawed?", I would have no case to make. In the present report, I will present evidence to support my view that this latter title is justified. The low quality data assessment is based on using a relatively imprecise eye-tracker, the absence of head restraint for any subjects, and the use of infants as the majority of subjects (60 of 70 subjects). Allowing subjects with more than 50% missing data (as much as 95%) is also evidence of low quality data. The error-filled assessment is based on evidence that a number of the "fixations" classified by "experts" have obvious saccades within them, and that, apparently, a number of fixations were classified on the basis of no signal at all. The evidence for non-optimal data presentation stems from the fact that, in a number of cases, perfectly good data was not presented to the coders. The flaws in the analysis are evidenced by the fact that entire stretches of missing data were considered classified, and that the measurement of saccade amplitude was based on many cases in which there was no saccade at all. Without general evidence to the contrary, it is correct to assume that some human classifiers under some conditions may meet the criteria for a gold standard, and classifiers under other conditions may not. This conditionality is not recognized by Hooge et al. A fair assessment would conclude that whether or not humans can be considered a gold standard is still very much an open question.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Biometric Performance as a Function of Gallery Size

Many developers of biometric systems start with modest samples before general deployment. They are interested in how their systems will work with much larger samples. We evaluated the effect of gallery size on biometric performance. Identification rates describe the performance of biometric identification, whereas ROC-based measures describe the performance of biometric authentication (verification). Therefore, we examined how increases in gallery size affected identification rates (i.e., Rank-1 Identification Rate, or Rank-1 IR) and ROC-based measures such as equal error rate (EER). We studied these phenomena with synthetic data as well as real data from a face recognition study. It is well known that the Rank-1 IR declines with increasing gallery size. We have provided further insight into this decline. We have shown that this relationship is linear in log(Gallery Size). We have also shown that this decline can be counteracted with the inclusion of additional information (features) for larger gallery sizes. We have also described the curves which can be used to predict how much additional information is required to stabilize the Rank-1 IR as a function of gallery size. These equations are also linear in log(gallery size). We have also shown that the entire ROC curve is not systematically affected by gallery size, and so ROC-based scalar performance metrics such as EER are also stable across gallery size.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Why Temporal Persistence of Biometric Features is so Valuable for Classification Performance

It is generally accepted that relatively more permanent (i.e., more temporally persistent) traits are more valuable for biometric performance than less permanent traits. Although this finding is intuitive, there is no current work identifying exactly where in the biometric analysis temporal persistence makes a difference. In this paper, we answer this question. In a recent report, we introduced the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as an index of temporal persistence for such features. In that report, we also showed that choosing only the most temporally persistent features yielded superior performance in 12 of 14 datasets. Motivated by those empirical results, we present a novel approach using synthetic features to study which aspects of a biometric identification study are influenced by the temporal persistence of features. What we show is that using more temporally persistent features produces effects on the similarity score distributions that explain why this quality is so key to biometric performance. The results identified with the synthetic data are largely reinforced by an analysis of two datasets, one based on eye-movements and one based on gait. There was one difference between the synthetic and real data: In real data, features are intercorrelated, with the level of intercorrelation increasing with increasing ICC. This increasedhttps://www.overleaf.com/project/5e2b14694c5dc600017292e6 intercorrelation in real data was associated with an increase in the spread of the impostor similarity score distributions. Removing these intercorrelations for real datasets with a decorrelation step produced results which were very similar to that obtained with synthetic features.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access