# Presentation: 909021

## MINEX II

- An evaluation of fingerprint Match-on-Card technology
- Patrick Grother
- Biometrics 2007, London, October 18, 2007

## Overview

- MINEX II – Match-on-card
- Compact iris interoperability test
- Standards for multimodal biometrics
- NIST Biometric Quality Workshop

## MINEX II – The NIST Context

- 1:N
- Fingerprint

- FpVTE
- (2003)

- US Gov.
- Systems

- Slap
- Segmentation

- FRVT
- (face)

- ICE
- (iris)

- Data for
- Credentials

- NIST Biometric Testing

- ELFT
- (latent)

- Quality

- PFT
- (ongoing)

## MINEX II – The NIST Context

- MINEX

- MINEX I
- 2004
- Initial evaluation

- Ongoing
- MINEX
- PIV

- MINEX II
- Match-on-Card

- MINEX III
- Minutia quality
- calibration

- sBMOC

- Compact
- Iris

- Standards
- SC37 WG3

- NIST Support for Biometric
- Elements for Identity Credentials

## Ongoing MINEX Compliant and Eligible for GSA Certification

**Template Generators**
- Cogent Systems
- Dermalog Identification Systems
- Bioscrypt
- Sagem Morpho
- Neurotechnologija
- Innovatrics
- NEC
- Cross Match Technologies
- L1 / Identix
- Precise Biometrics
- XTec
- SecuGen
- BIO-key International
- Motorola
- Aware
- Sonda Technologies

**Matchers**
- Cogent Systems
- Dermalog Identification Systems
- Bioscrypt
- Sagem Morpho
- Neurotechnologija
- Innovatrics
- NEC
- L1 / Identix
- XTec
- SecuGen
- BIO-key International
- Motorola
- Aware
- Startek Engineering

**16 suppliers**

**14 suppliers**

## MINEX II – Why MOC? 

- Match-on-Card – Why
- Cards are ubiquitous
- ISO/IEC 7816 cards have been 140-2 certified
- No central database
- Biometric reference never leaves the card
- Match-on-Card – Why not?
- Verification template must be made off card
- And passed to the card
- A matcher on every credential
- Computational resources ...

## MINEX II – Why?

- Hypothesis: MOC implementations have same accuracy
- Why might that be?
- MOC is not new.
- Same companies are involved
- Why not?
- Limited computational resources
- Stack space, registers
- Integer arithmetic
- Smaller instruction sets
- Smaller templates
- MOC typically uses fewer minutiae
- Reduced angular resolution in ISO-CC format
- Asymmetric Algorithms

- MINEX II is intended of as a definitive, public, independent, simultaneous measurement of the algorithmic accuracy and speed of MOC implementations

## Not in MINEX II Scope

- Card reliability, robustness
- Card vulnerability
- Security evaluation
- System-on-card
- Proprietary templates
- Business model, economics
- Card conformance to 7816-x
- Contact vs. contactless

## Two NIST programs: MINEX II + sBMOC

- Two separate but related programs:
- MINEX II
- Accuracy and speed of card-based algorithms
- Contact:  patrick.grother@nist.gov
- sBMOC  “Secure Biometric Match-on-Card”
- Demonstration of secure protocols for biometric authentication.  Publication of NISTIR 7452 imminent.
- Contact:  william.macgregor@nist.gov

## MINEX II – Design objectives

- Make it: independent, statistically robust, repeatable
- NIST
- Massive offline archival data
- Uniform, standards-based, interface
- Measure error rate tradeoffs
- Consider FNMR(t) vs. FMR(t)  Need matcher scores from card
- Demonstrate at industry “norm” of FMR of 10-4
- Measure time
- Inspect the slow-but-accurate  vs.  fast-but-inaccurate spectrum
- Allow teams
- Allow card suppliers to team with fingerprint matcher suppliers
- Use the industry-preferred template
- ISO/IEC 19794-2 compact card – three bytes per minutia

## MINEX II - Schedule

- Test plan development
- Initiated April 2007, finalized Aug 3, 2007
- Phase I (private)
- Submission deadline, September 10, 2007
- Acceptance + Validation testing began September 11, 2007
- Results to vendors October 14
- Phase II (public)
- Submissions due late October 2007
- NIST publishes report December 17, 2007
- MINEX II testing protocol  standardization
- US NB agreed to send New Project Proposal to SC37(WG5)

## MINEX II - Acknowledgments

- Authentec
- Bioscrypt
- Cogent
- Daon
- Fraunhöfer
- Gemalto

- IDTP
- L1
- Oberthur
- Precise Biometrics
- Sagem
- SC17 WG11

- The MINEX test plan established
-  a definitive card interface for testing
-  a definitive PC-based interface for testing
-  profiles of the base minutia standards
-  was developed in consultation with industry. Thanks to:

- http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex/minexII/NIST_MOC_ISO_CC_interop_test_plan_0815.pdf

## Evaluation Principle

**2. Confirm by repeating n « N comparisons on the card**

**1: Measure accuracy by Execute N template comparisons on general purpose computer**

- N = O(106)

- n = O(103)

## MINEX II – Execution

- Standards based test interface
- ISO/IEC 7816-4 – card commands
- ISO/IEC 7816-11 – biometric data structures
- ISO/IEC 19794-2 – compact card minutiae on card
- INCITS 378:2004 – parent template off card
- Test protocol
- Generate templates on PC
- Execute O(106) template comparisons on PC
- Repeat selected comparisons on target card
- Test on-card and off-card matcher scores for identity

## MINEX II – Card APDUs

- Reference Template:
- sent via PUT DATA

- Verification Template
- sent via VERIFY

- Similarity Score
- via GET DATA

- FMR

- FNMR

## MINEX II - Implementation

- Standard hardware
- SCR SCM335  reader (contact)
- Standard software
- M.U.S.C.L.E open-source PC/SC drivers
- Linux 2.6.X
- NIST Open Source MOC Harness

## INCITS 378 as Parents to ISO-CC

- User presents card

- Reader requests BIT from card

- Reader prompts for specific finger

- Scan produce output image

- Template extraction produces INCITS 378

- Remove N-K minutiae based on quality + polar distance, per BIT

- Quantize minutia angle (8  6 bits)

- Quantize (x,y)
- 197  100 pix cm-1

- Sort minutiae
- (XY, YX, Polar), per BIT

- ISO/IEC 19794-2 compact card “template”

- Send to card

- Match

- Decision

## Remove minutiae to card capacity

- Strategy:  Lowest quality first and, for tied quality values, use largest radial distance.

## MINEX II – Guidance on # minutiae

- Card capacity (max # minutiae)

- FMR

- FNMR

- Fix threshold to give FMR  = 0.001 for un-pruned templates

- 5 Matchers

## Does ISO-CC Degrade Accuracy?

- ISO/IEC 19794-2 compact card format
- ~ 250 dpi (vs. ubiquitous 500)
- ~ 5.6 deg. angle resolution (vs. 2 deg in INCITS 378)
- FMR decreases slightly (but significantly)
- FNMR increases slightly (but significantly)

## MINEX II – Software for Biometric Data

- Open-source “C” code for
- INCITS 378 minutiae
- ISO/IEC 19794-2 minutiae
- INCITS 385 face (~ ISO/IEC 19794-5)
- INCITS 381 finger (~ ISO/IEC 19794-6)
- Validation, construction, IO
- http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/nigos/biomdi.html
- Under full version control

## MINEX II – Software support for MOC

- MOC Template Support
- Transcoding INCITS 378 to ISO-CC templates:
- http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/nigos/biomapp.html
- ISO/IEC 7816 Support
- MINEX II interface uses (PUT DATA, VERIFY etc)
- See http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minexII
- And the open-source test driver here
- http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/nigos/biomapp.html

## MINEX II Results

- Protocol
- Vendor acceptance
- Four suppliers
- Six implementations
- Open source support
- It works
- One interface problem

- Implementations
- ISO-CC templates can be matched with accuracy approaching INCITS 378
- Some MOC implementations attain accuracy approaching that of better MINEX 04 matchers
- Median VERIFY execution time < 0.5s
- Speed – accuracy tradeoff is alive and well, but supplier influence is larger

## Compact Iris Formats

**Compression**

- JPEG 2000 + ROI
- JPEG
- Lossless

- NIST will release draft evaluation plan: November 15

**Interoperability**

- Multiple segmentation algorithms
- Multiple matching algorithms

## Fusion Support

- INCITS 439 – Fusion Information Format is about to be published.
- It defines binary data structures for similarity score statistics (CDFs) to support simple yet powerful fusion implementations
- Multimodal
- Multi-algorithm

## Score level fusion

- Large literature demonstrating that fusion techniques produce lower (FAR,FRR)
- If systems behave (fail, succeed) independently then fusion can have maximum effect.
- Score-level fusion is more potent that decision level
- But some evidence that even (face + finger) and (finger + iris) are partially correlated, due to human-sensor interaction etc.
- Score-level fusion is favored over feature level fusion for black box reasons:
- Implementation is easy.
- Post-match fusion avoids IP licensing or exposure.
- Also:
- Multimodal:	Iris Corp A + Fingerprint Corp B
- Multi-algorithmic:	Face Corp A + Face Corp B + . . .

## INCITS 439 Fusion Information Format - An Example

- Bayes optimal for uncorrelated biometrics
- Use of likelihood ratio allows relative “strength” of the (two) biometrics comes out in the wash without ad hoc weighting
- Aka BGI, Neyman Pearson.

- pdf

- m(x)

- n(x)

- M(x)

- N(x)

- = L(x)

- cdf

- Fused score:  s(x) = log LFACE(xFACE) + log LIRIS(xIRIS) + ...

## NIST – Biometric Quality Workshop

- NIST Biometric Quality Workshop
- November 7-8, 2007
- Gaithersburg, MD, USA
- Sequel to March 06.

- Quality
- Uses (during capture)
- Relation to error rates
- Assessment capabilities
- Needs
- Interoperable values
- Calibration

- http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/quality/workshop07

## Thank You

- Feedback is welcome:  patrick.grother@nist.gov

- MINEX Root
- http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex
- MINEX II
- http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minexII
- Ongoing MINEX program
- http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex