| Literature DB >> 26697529 |
Abstract
Palm-print based individual identification is regarded as an effectual method for identifying persons with high confidence. Palm-print with larger inner surface of hand contains many features such as principle lines, ridges, minutiae points, singular points, and textures. Feature based pattern matching has faced the challenge that the spatial positional variations occur between the training and test samples. To perform effective palm-print features matching, Rabin-Karp Palm-Print Pattern Matching (RPPM) method is proposed in this paper. With the objective of improving the accuracy of pattern matching, double hashing is employed in RPPM method. Multiple patterns of features are matched using the Aho-Corasick Multiple Feature matching procedure by locating the position of the features with finite set of bit values as an input text, improving the cumulative accuracy on hashing. Finally, a time efficient bit parallel ordering presents an efficient variation on matching the palm-print features of test and training samples with minimal time. Experiment is conducted on the factors such as pattern matching efficiency rate, time taken on multiple palm-print feature matching efficiency, and cumulative accuracy on hashing.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26697529 PMCID: PMC4678081 DOI: 10.1155/2015/382697
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Pattern match based on features.
Figure 2Overall structural diagram of RPPM method.
Double hashing table.
| Hash 1 ( | Hash 2 ( | Probe sequence of bits for different palm-print images |
|---|---|---|
| Training Image | ||
|
|
| 1101001001 |
|
|
| 1011110101 |
|
|
| 10101010001 |
Figure 3Probe sequences of bits.
Figure 4Sample palm-prints in CASIA database.
Tabulation for pattern matching efficiency.
| Number of images | Pattern matching efficiency (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| RPPM | SVD | MSR | |
| 3 | 65.36 | 59.33 | 50.32 |
| 6 | 71.43 | 65.4 | 56.39 |
| 9 | 75.85 | 69.82 | 60.81 |
| 12 | 72.35 | 66.32 | 57.31 |
| 15 | 78.45 | 72.42 | 63.41 |
| 18 | 81.33 | 75.3 | 67.29 |
| 21 | 85.75 | 79.72 | 70.71 |
Figure 5Impact of pattern matching efficiency.
Figure 6Impact of time for pattern matching.
Tabulation for time for pattern matching.
| Number of images | Time for pattern matching (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| RPPM | SVD | MSR | |
| 3 | 36 | 45 | 52 |
| 6 | 42 | 53 | 50 |
| 9 | 48 | 59 | 66 |
| 12 | 55 | 66 | 73 |
| 15 | 46 | 57 | 64 |
| 18 | 52 | 63 | 70 |
| 21 | 55 | 66 | 73 |
Tabulation for cumulative accuracy on hashing.
| Number of users | Cumulative accuracy on hashing (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| RPPM | SVD | MSR | |
| 5 | 55.83 | 49.8 | 40.75 |
| 10 | 61.45 | 56.42 | 47.37 |
| 15 | 58.35 | 52.32 | 45.27 |
| 20 | 65.88 | 59.85 | 51.80 |
| 25 | 62.35 | 56.32 | 49.27 |
| 30 | 68.45 | 62.42 | 55.37 |
| 35 | 73.88 | 67.85 | 59.8 |
Figure 7Impact of cumulative accuracy.
Tabulation for false positive rate.
| Number of users | False positive rate (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| RPPM | SVD | MSR | |
| 5 | 0.135 | 0.146 | 0.157 |
| 10 | 0.149 | 0.159 | 0.170 |
| 15 | 0.158 | 0.169 | 0.180 |
| 20 | 0.165 | 0.176 | 0.187 |
| 25 | 0.155 | 0.166 | 0.177 |
| 30 | 0.160 | 0.171 | 0.182 |
| 35 | 0.168 | 0.179 | 0.190 |
Figure 8Impact of false positive rate.