# Presentation: 771758

## Large Scale USA PATRIOT Act Biometric Testing

- C. L. Wilson
- Image Group
- IAD-ITL

## Outline

- Statutory Mandates
- Biometrics Testing is Scale Dependent
- Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation (FpVTE)
- Testing Fingerprint Software Development Kits (SDKs)
- US-VISIT Identification System (IDENT)
- Certification of Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)

## Statutory Mandates

- USA Patriot Act (PL 107-56)
- Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (PL 107-173)
- Develop and certify technology standard to
- verify identity of foreign nationals applying for a visa
- visa application at embassies and consulates
- background check against FBI criminal database and DHS databases and “watch lists”
- ensure person has not received visa under a different name
- verify identity of persons seeking to enter the U.S.
- verify that the person holding the travel document is the same person to whom the document was issued
- airports, land border crossings, sea entry points

## BIOMETRIC TESTING IS SCALE DEPENDENT

- SAMPLE SIZE 100-1,000                   Proves feasibility
- SAMPLE SIZE 1,000-10,000                            Measures subject variation
- SAMPLE SIZE 10,000-1,000,000                     Measures operational quality control
- Existing government databases contain millions of entries and have widely varying quality.

## FpVTE 

- The Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation (FpVTE) 2003 is an evaluation of the accuracy of fingerprint matching, identification, and verification systems. It is the largest such evaluation yet conducted.
- FpVTE 2003 was conducted by the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) on behalf of the Justice Management Division (JMD) of the U.S. Department of Justice.
- FpVTE 2003 serves as part of NIST's statutory mandate under section 403c of the USA PATRIOT Act to certify those biometric technologies that may be used in U.S. VISIT.
- FpVTE 2003 evaluations were conducted at NIST facilities at Gaithersburg from October through November 2003.
- Eighteen different companies competed, with 35 different systems tested. Each test had a time limit of two or three weeks (running 24/7).
- FpVTE 2003 used operational fingerprint data from a variety of U.S. Government sources.
- Analysis of the FpVTE 2003 results is ongoing and will be reported in 2Q 2004.

## FpVTE- Comparison of Systems

- There is a substantial difference in accuracy between the best systems and the average or worst systems
- The results allow systems to be grouped by performance into tiers
- The top tier systems are more consistent in performance than the other systems
- They perform consistently well over a variety of data, and are less affected by fingerprint quality and other variables
- The top tier systems are being used for further detailed evaluation at NIST
- This reduces the possible dispute over whether results are repeatable
- SDK tests will be ongoing—new or revised SDKs can be accepted at any time

## FpVTE - Overall Accuracy of Fingerprint Systems

- The best systems are extremely accurate
- Measured accuracy of the best system:
- 1 finger: 97-98% True match rate @ 10-7 False match rate
- 2 finger: 99% True match rate @ 10-7 False match rate
- 10 finger: ***no measured errors*** @ 10-7 False match rate

## SDK Tests

- Medium scale evaluation of
- one-to-one matching for:
- 8 software matchers
- 12 single finger datasets

## What were the goals of the test?

- Determine the feasibility of verification matching in the US-VISIT and DOS clients
- Evaluate vendor accuracy variability
- Evaluate vendor sensitivity to image quality
- Also used to scale the MST in FpVTE

## Scale of Tests

- Each test involved 36M matches on a 3GHz Pentium platform.
- Gallery 6K probe 6K
- Match time must be less than 10ms per fingerprint pair
- Each test results in an ROC curve

## SDK Testing - 8 Algorithms, 12 datasets, 3.46G matches

## VTB

## SDK - Conclusions

- All vendors are sensitive to image quality.
- Three algorithms are clearly more effective.
- Combining two fingers will provide very effective one-to-one verification for the  US-VISIT program.
- The NIST VTB algorithm is better than many commercial products.

## US-VISIT IDENT System

- IDENT is the primary fingerprint matcher for US-VISIT
- Three functions:
- Watch list checking at enrollment
- Duplicate identification check for visa holders
- One-to-one verification for enrolled travelers

## US-VISIT Identification many-to-one matching

- Using Department of State (DOS) Mexican visa (BCC) data, the true accept rate (TAR) using index finger pairs is independent of background database size over the range from 100,000 entries to 6,000,000 entries and is 96% with shape filtering on.
- The false accept rate (FAR) using index finger pairs is linearly increasing with database size and is 0.09% using existing threshold parameters for a gallery size of 6,000,000.
- At the operating level used by the IDENT system, the trade-off between TAR and FAR is such that a large change in FAR results in only a small change in TAR. The trade-off curve is flat, with very small slope change.
- All the results given here require that the test data be consolidated, checked for correct ground truth by fingerprint examiners, since between 0.5% and 1.5% of the original data was found to be incorrectly matched. Approximately 0.1% of the questioned data is of insufficient quality to be resolved by examiners. This 0.1% error rate is the minimum error limit detected in existing government fingerprint databases.

## US-VISIT Identificationmany-to-one matching

- The Cogent image quality is a good predictor of the IDENT many-to-one matching performance. The best quality images, quality 1, produce a TAR of 98% at a FAR of 0.01%. The worst quality images, quality 8, produce a TAR of 47% at a FAR of 0.01%.
- Image quality distributions for BCC, the Atlanta pilot study, and OHIO web check were studied to determine how well the operational US-VISIT system could be expected to track BCC and Ohio results. The Atlanta data has slightly more quality 8 images and slightly less quality 1 images but should result in a TAR near BCC. The Ohio data has less quality 8 images and more quality 1 images. This is reflected in a TAR of 98% using the IDENT system.
- The matcher used in this study achieves a match rate of 1,045,000 matches/second with shape filtering on and 731,000 matches/second with shape filtering off.

## US-VISIT Verificationone-to-one matching

- Using BCC quality data on two index fingers a one-to-one matching with a TAR of 99.7% at a FAR of 0.1% should be achieved.
- These results were achieved using the a Software Development Kit (SDK) program set supplied by Cogent that is the same algorithm planned for use in VISIT.
- Testing of eleven other SDK’s proved that this algorithm is as accurate as any of the algorithms tested although further testing of additional algorithms is planned.
- All algorithms tested have a significant change in accuracy with image quality. High accuracy algorithms are less sensitive to image quality than low accuracy algorithms.

## US-VISIT Verificationone-to-one matching

- Cogent image quality is a good rank statistic for all the algorithms tested for all the datasets used. The error rate of quality 1 (best) fingerprints is always lower than the error rate of any other image quality sample and the error rate of quality 8 (worst) fingerprints is always the highest.  All other image quality levels result in the expected ordering of the error rates.
- Consolidation results on various datasets available to NIST demonstrate that the errors obtained for one-to-one matching is less than the clerical error rate in most government databases. Clerical errors will be more common than biometric errors for one–to-one matching.

## ATB - IAFIS

- ATB – Algorithmic Test Bed for IAFIS
- ATB is used by NIST for Patriot Act certification of the FBI’s IASIF
- Functional equivalent of IAFIS component
- Same IAFIS software
- Same / compatible hardware
- 3% sample of data (1.2M cards)
- Validated scale model
- Developer’s sandbox
- Measure operational characteristics
- speed and accuracy
- Vary operational mode
- plain vs. rolled, 10-finger vs. 4-finger vs. 2-finger vs. 1-finger

## ATB Results

*H**ow accurate is plain_to_rolled identification? is it less accurate than rolled_to_rolled?*
- Failure to identify (1-TAR) can be 2% or less for plain_to rolled identification.  Accuracy can be as good as with rolled prints of average quality.
*H**ow accurate is plain_to_rolled identification with fewer than ten fingers?*
- Accuracy with fewer than ten fingers can exceed accuracy with ten fingers, but performance penalties can be expected .
*A**re performance penalties incurred by adopting plain_to_rolled identification? if penalties are incurred, how great are they?*
- Performance (throughput) deteriorates markedly as the amount of data is reduced.

## ATB Results

*D**oes gallery size affect accuracy? if there is an effect, how can it be characterized?*
- Within the range of gallery sizes covered by these studies (160,000 to 45,000,000), gallery size did not affect overall accuracy (TAR).  We feel quite comfortable extrapolating these results to cover the range from 100,000 to 100,000,000 (from 105 to 108).
*D**oes the ATB accurately model the behavior of IAFIS?*
- Yes.