Table 5.
Comparison of the proposed system with other (including current state-of-the-art) methods with CEDAR dataset.
Author | Verification type | No. of training sample | FRR | FAR | AER |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[68] | WI | 24G | — | — | 8.33 |
[69] | WD | 16G | 6.36 | 5.68 | 6.02 |
[33] | WD | 12G | 9.36 | 7.84 | 8.60 |
[42] | WD | 5G | 4.44 | 15.91 | 3.64 |
10G | 5.83 | 11.52 | 2.74 | ||
[70] | WI | 4G | — | — | 8.70 |
8G | 7.41 | 8.25 | 7.83 | ||
12G | — | — | 5.60 | ||
[44] | WD | 5G | 12.5 | 8.33 | 10.41 |
10G | 8.33 | 4.17 | 6.25 | ||
12G | 4.67 | 4.67 | 4.67 | ||
Ours | WI | 5G | 4.32 | 7.84 | 6.08 |
10G | 5.72 | 4.12 | 5.92 | ||
12G | 3.97 | 4.33 | 4.15 |