Example Results
The following table shows some example results for the competition datasets, calculated using a baseline configuration for method already published in bibliography [1].
CEMB (Rank-1 IR) Development Datasets(half gallery-half probe) | |||
RAN_30min | RAN_1year | TEX_30min | TEX_1year |
40.52% | 16.22% | 52.94% | 40.54% |
CEMB (Rank-1 IR) Evaluation Datasets(labeled gallery - unlabeled probe) | |||
RAN_30min | RAN_1year | TEX_30min | TEX_1year |
33.99% | 40.54% | 58.17% | 48.65% |
[1] C. Holland, and O. V. Komogortsev, “Complex Eye Movement Pattern Biometrics: Analyzing Fixations and Saccades,” in Proc. of the IEEE/IARP International Conference on Biometrics (ICB), 2013, pp. 1-8.
Competition Results
This is the final ranking based on the results for the evaluation datasets of the BioEye 2015 Competition.
Final Results of BioEye 2015 Competition(Rank-1 IR) | |||||||
Rank | Name | Affiliation | RAN_30min | RAN_1year | TEX_30min | TEX_1year | IR_final |
1 | A. George and Prof. A. Routray | Indian Inst. of Tech. Kharagpur | 98.69% | 89.19% | 98.04% | 94.59% | 95.78% |
2 | N. Abe | Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. | 88.89% | 59.46% | 91.50% | 67.57% | 79.52% |
3 | P. Kasprowski | Silesian Un. of Technology | 75.82% | 54.05% | 73.20% | 45.95% | 64.71% |
4 | T. Kuebler | Un. Tuebingen | 51.63% | 40.54% | 57.52% | 40.54% | 48.96% |
5 | B. Galmar | Independent Researcher | 30.07% | 24.32% | 49.02% | 27.03% | 34.00% |
6 | R. Bixler | Un. of Notre Dame | 20.26% | 5.41% | 13.73% | 10.81% | 13.44% |
7 | A. Kuehlkamp | Un. of Notre Dame | 10.46% | 10.81% | 11.76% | 10.81% | 10.99% |