MINEX II

Performance of Fingerprint Match-on-Card Algorithms

Phase IV Report

NIST Interagency Report 7477

(Revision II)

P. Grother, W. Salamon, C. Watson, M. Indovina, and P. Flanagan

Information Access Division

National Institute of Standards and Technology

March 15, 2011
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Executive Summary

The MINEX II trials have been conducted to evaluate the accuracy and speed of MATCH-ON-CARD verification algorithms.

These run on ISO/IEC 7816 smartcards. They compare reference and verification data conformant to the ISO/IEC 19794-2

COMPACT CARD fingerprint minutia standard. The test is an assessment of the core viability of matching fingerprints (i.e.

the de facto leading compact biometric data element) on personal identity credentials based on the industry-standard

smart cards. The results are relevant to users of minutia templates as additional authentication factor.

This document is the third publication of MINEX II results. The prior two releases1 were published on February 29, 2008

and on May 21, 2009. The number of MATCH-ON-CARD implementations has increased from 12 in 2008, via an additional

7 in 2009, to 17 in 2010. The number of card-provider algorithm-provider teams was 5 in 2008, 4 in 2009, and 12 in 2010.

The significant results of this report support the proposed inclusion of MATCH-ON-CARD in the U. S. Government’s PIV

program. Initial requirements appear in the recently drafted Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 201-22, and

NIST is now developing MOC specifications for PIV.

. MATCH-ON-CARD(MOC) implementations from five providers would meet the minimum error rate

interoperability specifications of the United States’ Government’s PIV program for MATCH-OFF-CARD

implementations. Dedicated MATCH-ON-CARD specifications for PIV are under development. The

increase in interoperable accuracy and in the number of PIV-capable commercial providers (from two

in 2009 to five in 2010) represents a maturation of the marketplace of standards-compliant products.

Sec. 6

. PIV compliance, and the success of a MOC deployment, depend on more than the on-card matching

algorithm. The minutia detection algorithm used to prepare the card’s reference template, and authentication templates is critical also, such that the selection of the template generator is now more

influential on error rates than is the matching algorithm itself. Good minutia detection algorithms reliably find the same minutiae in two captured images of the same finger. Poor generators have caused

several MOC implementations tested here and in prior MINEX II phases to narrowly miss PIV compliance. This warrants further development, standardization, test and calibration work.

Sec. 4.3

. MATCH-ON-CARD remains a technically difficult task, however: Algorithms from two other providers

miss the PIV requirements despite those providers having PIV-compliant MATCH-OFF-CARD implementations. This shows that the porting of algorithms running on general purpose computers to smart

cards is a non-trivial task. The number of providers of off-card minutiae matching algorithms greatly

exceeds that for on-card.

Sec. 6

. MOC deployments should adopt template generators that report minutia quality values, such as those

submitted to MINEX II. Reliable quality values are vital in the preparation of the compact-format

templates sent to the card, particularly from noisy images.

Sec. 6

. Biometric providers usually do not publish operating thresholds needed to achieve target false match

rates(FMRs). Providers establish the threshold value via internal calibration on proprietary databases.

This report for the first time includes FMR threshold calibration information derived from authentication of images from nearly 125000 individuals. In addition the calibration is based on fingerprint

minutia from more than 20 minutiae detection algorithms. This supports MOC use in federated applications where template generators from from multiple providers are in use.

Sec. 7

. The two fastest implementations, from Precise Biometrics and ID3, execute 50% of genuine ISO/IEC

7816 VERIFY commands in less than 0.1 seconds and almost all comparisons within 0.25 seconds.

Additionally a Morpho algorithm executes in 0.15 seconds. These times are so fast as to be negligible

and imperceptible parts of an end-to-end human authentication attempt. These algorithms meet the

PIV accuracy specifications.

Sec. 5

1The 2008 and 2009 reports are archived at http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get pdf.cfm?pub id=902634 and http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get pdf.cfm?pub id=150676.

2See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/pubsfips.html

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

1
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

. Some providers of MATCH-ON-CARD implementations have improved both accuracy and speed over

the three years spanned by the three MINEX II evaluations. A single Morpho algorithm submitted

in 2007 and 2010 is now more than three times faster due solely to improvements in the card. A

Precise Biometrics algorithm implemented runs approximately 15 times more quickly on one card

than another. MINEX II did not quantify card cost, so whether this affords a cost-speed tradeoff is not

known.

Sec. 8

. Fingerprint vendors expend considerable money and engineering resources to improving fingerprint

algorithms. This activity has produced faster and more accurate MATCH-ON-CARD implementations,

as measured by MINEX II. However, these accuracy improvements are smaller by an order of magnitude than the accuracy variation caused by the presence of poorly performing minutia template generators. While providers reasonably focus their attention toward internal research and development

to differentiate their product, the marketplace may be supported by increasing efforts to improve interoperabiliy via improving ISO/IEC 19794-2, associated performance tests and calibration efforts, and

development of the ISO/IEC 29109-2 amendment on semantic conformance.

Sec. 6

. Over its three year duration, MINEX II has attained unprecedented transparency in its execution: the

evaluation plan was published during its development with industry, and MATCH-ON-CARD providers

were able to implement a single fixed open ISO/IEC 7816 based interface. Further NIST released

version-controlled open-source software for both conformance and conversion of INCITS 378 and

ISO/IEC 19794-2 COMPACT CARD templatesa, and for invocation the ISO/IEC 7816 MATCH-ON-CARD

operations. The testing protocol has now been standardized as ISO/IEC 19795-7:2011 Testing of on-card

biometric comparison algorithms.

Ann. A

aThese standards are available from http://webstore.ansi.org.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

2
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Caveats

Biometric test reports are relevant only within a particular context, and therefore a caveats apply to the quantitative

results and conclusions of this report. Particularly MINEX II did not evaluate interface standards, secure transmission

protocols, nor card or algorithm vulnerabilities. In addition it did not consider fingerprint sensors and interoperability

between them, nor modalities beyond fingerprints[4]. The following points should influence policy, planning and operational decisions. Further a complete discussion of the advantages and limitations of MATCH-ON-CARD is beyond the

scope of this report.

1. The absolute error rates quoted here were measured over a very large fixed corpus of operational fingerprint

images. However, error rates observed in real-world applications are strongly dependent on a number of factors

legitimately not reflected in the experimental design of MINEX II . Among these are:

. Environment - For instance, low humidity is associated with higher false rejection;

. Number of verification attempts - More attempts lead to lower false rejection, and higher false acceptance;

. Number of presentations allowed, and the decision policy - several images improves accuracy;

. Number of fingers used, and the fusion policy - images from two or more fingers improves accuracy;

. Demographics - Younger adult populations are widely considered to be easier to match;

. Habituation - Users who regularly interact with a system experience lower rejection rates;

. The sensor, and the enrollment policy - The application of quantitative quality criteria, e.g. in an auto-capture

loop, improves error rates;

. The data format in use - Proprietary templates generally offer superior error rates to standardized formats[8],

but are non-interoperable. Proprietary extensions to standard templates are similarly non-interoperable unless executable code for each vendor’s extensions is built into the reader or read from the card.

2. With respect to MOC specifically, the accuracy and speed of operational verification transactions will generally

depend on a number of factors, including the following.

. The operational card stock in use.

. The number of templates stored on the card.

. The number of fingers presented.

. The quality of the enrollment procedure, particularly whether a verification was done at time of card issuance.

. The communications channel and interface.

. The cryptographic operations needed to secure the channel and to authenticate the card and data elements

(but see SBMOC in section 1.3).

In addition, the template generation and matching algorithms are strongly influential on error rates. To the extent that

MINEX II measured the accuracy of leading industrial and academic algorithms (i.e. only partially), these aspects are

documented here. Thus this MINEX trial addresses the core algorithmic capability of a MOC implementation. The results:

. support qualification processes (e.g. PIV ),

. have relevance operationally (matching accuracy and speed are strongly influential components of a system),

. are not sufficient for prediction of fielded performance.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

3
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Disclaimer

Specific hardware and software products identified in this report were used in order to perform the evaluations described

in this document. In no case does identification of any commercial product, trade name, or vendor, imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the products and

equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

Release Notes

. This revision of this document still uses the term MATCH-ON-CARD instead of the term ON-CARD COMPARISON

which has been adopted by the Working Group 11 of ISO/IEC SC 17, and Working Group 5 of ISO/IEC SC 37.

The older term, MATCH-ON-CARD, is deprecated in those forums.

. The MINEX II evaluation was conducted in accordance with the MINEX II Specification which has been released

as a separate NIST Interagency Report, NISTIR 7485[9]. The plan was developed by NIST in consultation with

members of the fingerprint and smart card industries. The document was drafted in April 2007, circulated for

public comment, and finalized on August 15, 2007. The NISTIR version adds only a note on context, a coversheet,

and acknowledgments to it. It is cited herein, and because it is a suitable protocol for other organizations wishing

to evaluate MATCH-ON-CARD implementations.

. In late 2008 the MINEX II Specification was submitted toward the ISO/IEC 19795 - Biometric Performance Testing

and Reporting - Part 7 standard on testing of on-card biometric comparison algorithms. This was developed in

ISO/IEC JTC 1’s Subcommittee 37 Working Group 5, and completed in 2010. Publication is pendinga.

. Thoughout this report the implementations are identified as MX2-IV-x, with x ∈ {A − Q}. This association

supports automated administration of the test, and conserves space in the tables of this report. The letter codes

were assigned in approximate order of receipt of the implementation and its passing of subsequent validation

and conformance trials. For reference, the letters are associated with the providers’ names in a running footnote.

. Letters MX2A → MX2M denote implementations tested in the period 2007 to 2008. Letters MX2N → MX2T refer

to those tested from late 2008 to 2009. See Table 1.

. Much of the tabulated content in this report was produced automatically. This involved the use of scripting tools

to generate directly typesettable LATEX content. This improves timeliness, flexibility, maintainability, and reduces

transcription errors.

. Correspondence regarding this report should be directed to MINEXII@NIST.GOV.

aSee http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue detail.htm?csnumber=53059.

Acknowledgements

This work is responsive to the research needs of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI). The authors would like to acknowledge the NIST Multi-Factor Authentication Program as sponsors of this work.

In addition, the authors would like to thank the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate

as sponsors of standardization effors in this area.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

4
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Participation

With the primary MINEX II objective to ascertain MATCH-ON-CARD capability by measuring fingerprint algorithm accuracy in the intended environment (i.e. the card), the test allowed card vendors to team with several fingerprint algorithm

vendors, and vice versa. This policy reflected the notion that if accuracy can be traded against speed, then a fingerprint

supplier’s technology may demonstrate improved accuracy when implemented on a more capable card. NIST therefore

required identification of both the card and fingerprint technology suppliers, and these are presented in Table 1. Note

Participants were encouraged, but not required, to supply an INCITS 378 fingerprint minutia template generator. One

elected to do so in Phases I and II, two did so in Phase III, five did so in Phase IV.

Card Fingerprint Matcher Card Fingerprint NIST Phases I - IV

Vendor Vendor Vendor ID Vendor ID IDs Generator Matcher

TecSec Precise Biometrics 00990100 000B0100 MX2A I

TecSec Precise Biometrics 00990101 000B0101 MX2B I

Internet Risk Management Neurotechnologija 00312001 00312001 MX2C I I

Sagem Morpho Sagem Morpho 001D6221 001D0002 MX2D I, II I, II

Sagem Morpho Sagem Morpho 001D6221 001D0003 MX2E I, II I, II

Oberthur ID 3 0415010B 003F0301 MX2F I, II

Oberthur ID 3 0415010C 003F0108 MX2G I, II

Oberthur ID 3 0415010C 003F0109 MX2H I, II

Oberthur ID 3 0415010C 003F0216 MX2I I, II

Oberthur ID 3 0415010C 003F0222 MX2J I, II

Oberthur ID 3 0415010C 003F0228 MX2K I, II

Giesecke & Devrient Giesecke & Devrient 41570001 41570010 MX2M II

Gemalto Innovatrics 41580002 00350095 MX2N III III

Gemalto Innovatrics 41580002 00350096 MX2O III III

Oberthur ID 3 1433C6FC10010D 003F0310 MX2P III

Oberthur ID 3 1433C6FC10010D 003F0320 MX2Q III

Gemalto Micro-PackS 41580001 41610010 MX2R III

Gemalto Micro-PackS 41580001 41610011 MX2S III

Gemalto Cogent 41580001 00173143 MX2T III III

Athena Neurotechnology 0031FF01 00312002 MX2-IV-A IV IV

Athena Neurotechnology 0031FF01 00312003 MX2-IV-B IV IV

Morpho Morpho 001D9069 001D0004 MX2-IV-C IV IV

Morpho Morpho 001D9232 001D0105 MX2-IV-D IV IV

Oberthur ID3 1433CF0801010E 003F0311 MX2-IV-E IV IV

Oberthur ID3 1433BF0801010E 003F0321 MX2-IV-F IV IV

Spyrus Precise Biometrics 41710300 000B0215 MX2-IV-G IV IV

Giesecke & Devrient Precise Biometrics 41570002 000B0212 MX2-IV-H IV IV

Gemalto Precise Biometrics 41580001 000B0210 MX2-IV-I IV IV

Gemalto Precise Biometrics 41580001 000B0211 MX2-IV-J IV IV

Gemalto Innovatrics 41580001 00350002 MX2-IV-K IV IV

Gemalto Innovatrics 41580002 00350003 MX2-IV-L IV IV

Gemalto Micro-PackS 41580001 41610012 MX2-IV-M IV

Gemalto Dermalog 41580001 000D0107 MX2-IV-N IV

PAV Card Dermalog 41654165 000D0106 MX2-IV-O IV

MaskTech Dermalog 41690001 000D0107 MX2-IV-P IV

DART Institute for Infocomm Research 416A0001 416B0001 MX2-IV-Q IV

Table 1: Teams participating in the four MINEX II phases. Phase III is in blue. The latest Phase IV is in red. This document only publishes results for

Phase IV. The last two columns indicate the components the teams elected to submit - the template generator was optional, the matcher was mandatory.

Empty cells indicate the provider elected not to participate, or failed to submit according to the deadline. Participation in Phase I or II (2007-2008) was

not a pre-requiste of Phase III (2008-2009) which in turn was not required for Phase IV (2010).

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

5
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Terms and Definitions

Table 2 gives MINEX-specific definitions to various words and acronyms found in this report.

No. Term Definition

1 MOC Match-on-Card

2 SMOC Secure Match-on-Card

3 ANSI American National Standards Institute

4 ISO International Organization for Standardization

5 IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

6 SC 17 Subcommittee responsible for development of indentfication card standards

7 SC 37 Subcommittee responsible for development of biometrics standards

8 M1 The standards body that formulates comments toward SC 37 biometrics standards

9 INCITS International Committee for Information Technology Standards

10 INCITS 378:2004 U.S. standard governing the templates

11 ISO/IEC 19795-2:2005 International variant of the INCITS 378 format

12 Compact card Three-bytes per minutia format defined in ISO/IEC 19794-2:2005

13 Standard template Record containing standard (x, y, θ, type, quality) minutiae

14 Proprietary template Template comparable only with a template from the same vendor

15 Enrollment template Synonym for reference template

16 Reference template Template from the first sample of a subject, stored on card

17 Authentication template Template generated from a second sample of a subject, or from an impostor’s sample

18 Matcher Software function that compares two templates to produce a similarity score

19 Generator Software function that accepts an image and produces a template

20 Native matching Comparison by matcher from vendor X of two templates from vendor X’s generator

21 BIT Biometric Information Template (See ISO/IEC 7816 )

22 BDB Biometric Data Block (See SC37’s Harmonized Vocabulary[1])

23 Genuine Comparison of templates from the same person

24 Impostor Comparison of templates from different individuals

25 Verification One-to-one comparison

26 Authentication Synonym for verification

27 FAR False accept rate (i.e. transactional outcome)

28 FRR False reject rate (i.e. transactional outcome)

29 FMR False match rate (i.e. 1:1 single sample comparison outcome )

30 FNMR False non-match rate (i.e. 1:1 single sample comparison outcome )

31 DET Detection Error Tradeoff characteristic

32 SDK Software Development Kit

33 APDU Application Protocol Data Unit

34 API Application Programming Interface

35 DHS U. S. Department of Homeland Security

36 NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

37 POE Referring to samples collected in a port of entry

38 BVA Referring to samples collected as part of a biometric visa application

39 MINEX The Minutiae Interoperability Exchange program

Table 2: Glossary of MINEX II related terms

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

6
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

1 INTRODUCTION

The approval of the U.S. and international fingerprint minutia template standards, specifically INCITS 378 and ISO/IEC

19794-2:2005 , have created the possibility to establish an interoperable multivendor marketplace for applications involving fast, economic, and accurate interchange and matching of compact biometric templates.

The standards are not application specific. They define formats which can be used for both MATCH-OFF-CARD and

MATCH-ON-CARD . While the viability of the templates for MATCH-OFF-CARD has been assessed previously [8, 7, 6],

the MATCH-ON-CARD application, which is almost always conceived of as occuring on conformant ISO/IEC 7816 smart

cards, has not been independently and publicly tested.

Thus, the MINEX II trial was designed to answer three important and outstanding questions surrounding MATCH-ONCARD , namely:

. What is the accuracy loss incurred using the three bytes per minutia ISO/IEC 19794-2 COMPACT CARD format

favored for MATCH-ON-CARD , vs. the six bytes per minutia INCITS 378 format?

. What loss in accuracy is incurred when compact fingerprint minutia templates are matched on ISO/IEC 7816 cards

vs. on a resource-rich processor?

. What is the time needed to execute the algorithmic matching operation?

The first question was addressed in the MINEX II Evaluation Plan [9]. While the last question can be estimated by ad hoc

usage, it is the near-term imperative to answer the second question that served as the primary motivator for the MINEX

II study.

The results of MINEX II may have implications for projects such as the US Government’s Personal Identity Verification

(PIV) program3 and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC).

PIV was initiated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 124. This mandated the establishment of a common

identification standard for federal employees and contractors. It required interoperable identity credentials for physical

and logical access to federal government facilities and systems. In response, NIST released FIPS 2015in February 2005,

which includes the definition of an identity credential. It specified the inclusion of data from two fingerprints as a third

authentication factor. The format for this information was finalized in February 2006, when NIST Special Publication 800-76

specified the MINEX II profile of the INCITS 2004 minutia standard. A broad timeline is given in Table 3.

1.1 Objectives

The MINEX 04 evaluation was intended to assess the viability of the INCITS 378 templates as the interchange medium for

fingerprint data. The main objective was to determine whether standardized minutia reference templates can be subsequently matched against an authentication template from another vendor. MINEX II retains this objective but focuses the

activity to matchers using ISO/IEC 19794-2 COMPACT CARD templates on ISO/IEC 7816 cards.

MINEX II is intended to measure the core algorithmic capabilities of fingerprint matching algorithms running on standardized ISO/IEC 7816 smart cards. Specifically the MINEX II program has

. instantiated a mechanism for MATCH-ON-CARD testing,

. reported accuracy of MATCH-ON-CARD of ISO/IEC 19794-2:2005 compact card minutia templates,

. timed the various operations, and

. demonstrated the viability of INCITS 378:2004 as a parent to the ISO/IEC 19794-2 compact card. This leveraged

transcoding software available in NIST’s open-source BIOMDI (Biometric Data Interchange) repository6.

3See http://csrc.nist.gov/piv-program/

4The text of HSPD 12 is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040827-8.html

5See Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 201, Personal Identity Verification for Federal Employees and Contractors and related documents here: http://csrc.nist.gov/piv-program

6See http://biometrics.nist.gov/nigos

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

7
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

The following are specifically not within the current scope of this evaluation.

. The ISO/IEC 19794-2 ”record” and ”card normal” templates.

. Ridge count, core and delta, and zonal quality extensions.

. Proprietary templates, and non-standard extensions to any standardized minutia format.

. Evaluation of readers, including performance, conformance and interoperability.

. Evaluation of ruggedness or durability of the card.

. On-card template generation (i.e. extraction of minutiae from images).

. Template update or adaptation.

. A formal test of conformance to parts of ISO/IEC 7816. However, the test uses ISO/IEC 7816 parts 4 and 11, and

conformance to the relevant clauses thereof was required.

. Devices not conforming to ISO/IEC 7816, including all system-on-card and sense-on-card devices embedding proprietary templates7

.

1.2 Relationship to the MINEX parent program

The wider MINEX program is intended to improve template-based interoperability from the imperfect state reported in

MINEX 04 and MTIT[7] toward that achievable with image-based implementations. The approach is to conduct several

programs, MINEX II, III, IV etc, each of which will embed development, evaluation, targeted feedback and consultation activities between NIST, industry and other interested parties. Within scope are any issues to do with fingerprint

minutiae as an interoperable biometric. Typical outcomes will be measurements of accuracy, processing time, template

size, and commentary on the relevant standards, studies of utility of quality measures, calibration information, and new

metrics. Two prior tests have been conducted:

. MINEX 04 was conducted as an initial comparison of image vs. minutia-based interoperability. It assessed the

core algorithmic ability of fingerprint matcher Z to compare minutiae templates from template generators X and Y.

It compared the matching accuracy in that case with fully proprietary templates on the same sets of archival images.

The test adopted the INCITS 378 template as a base standard. The test is now closed. http://fingeprint.nist.gov/minex04

. Ongoing MINEX is a continuing program of interoperability assessment intended to measure conformance and

interoperability of INCITS 378:2004 samples. The test uses one expanded partition of the MINEX 04 data to formulate

interoperable groups of matchers and template generators. One client of Ongoing MINEX is the US Government’s

PIV program which has its own set of criteria against which the interoperable group is formed. The test results are

available to other applications or programs which may elect to set their own criteria for interoperable performance.

The test remains open8.

1.3 Relationship to NIST’s SBMOC activity

A concurrent and related but procedurally separate activity, SECURE BIOMETRIC MATCH-ON-CARD (SBMOC) FEASIBILITY STUDY was conducted at NIST9 as a demonstration of MATCH-ON-CARD authentication in which the communications

channel was secured, the privacy and integrity of the biometric data was cryptographically protected and the card was

authenticated to the reader. This was done using a contactless interface. The operations were timed, with the goal

7These devices should only be tested in a live scenario test, with device instrumentation to capture proprietary templates for offline crosscomparison.

8For results and participation see http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex.

9MINEX II was run by the Information Access Division. The SBMOC activity was conducted by the Computer Security Division.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

8
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

No. Period Event

1 August 25 1986 Minutiae standardization begins: ANSI/NBS10-ICST 1-1986 Data Format for Fingerprint Information Interchange standard.

2 December 12 2003 Initial discussions for MINEX 04 at NIST

3 March 8 2004 INCITS 378 Finalized

4 August 27 2004 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 is signed

5 September 21 2004 MINEX 04 is announced publicly

6 February 25 2005 Publication of FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARD-201

7 September 15 2005 Publication of ISO/IEC 19794-2 Biometric Data Interchange Format - Finger

minutiae data

8 December 2005 Amendments to INCITS 378 discussed in Toronto meeting of M1

9 February 1 2006 NIST Special Publication 800-76-1 is released

10 March 6 2006 MINEX 04, NISTIR 7296, is released

11 March 6 2006 ONGOING MINEX is announced

12 March 12 2007 MINEX II Concept document released for comment

13 August 15 2007 MINEX II Test Plan finalized

14 October 14 2007 MINEX II Phase I results returned to suppliers

15 November 15 2007 MINEX II Phase II submission deadline

16 January 16 2008 MINEX II Phase II report is submitted for release

17 June 20 2008 NIST announces the Phase III round of testing

18 March 24 2008 NIST comments toward revision of ISO/IEC 19794-2

19 October 30 2008 MINEX II Phase III submission deadline

20 February 27 2009 Latest CD text of revised ISO/IEC 19794-2

21 March 30 2009 NIST comments toward revision of ISO/IEC 19794-2:2005

22 April 27 2009 MINEX II Phase III report is submitted for release

23 November 23 2009 MINEX II Phase IV is announced

24 March 3 2010 MINEX II Phase IV commences

25 February 18 2011 MINEX II Phase IV report is submitted for release

26 March 8, 2011 Draft of FIPS 201-2 is released for comment

27 April 2011 NIST Special Publication 800-76-2 draft is released for comment

28 April 2011 NIST hosts workshop on FIPS 201 revision

Table 3: MINEX chronology and related events.

of conducting an authentication within 2.5 seconds. The results have been published as NISTIR 7452 Secure Biometric

Match-on-Card Feasibility Report [5].

Not all participants in the SBMOC entered MINEX II , and vice versa.

2 TEST IMPLEMENTATION

2.1 Concept

The MINEX II evaluation measures MATCH-ON-CARD performance at low false match rates with statistical robustness.

This necessitates the execution of very large numbers of genuine and impostor comparisons. These cannot be conducted

on physical cards for reasons of total time and card durability. Thus, the fundamental approach to testing is to run a

PC-based implementation of the card algorithm, and then to verify that the PC algorithm is the same as that on the card

by re-running a subset of the template comparisons on the actual card, and checking that the output similarity scores are

identical.

2.2 Procedures

The test was implemented by requiring participants to submit the minutiae matching algorithm as an SDK conforming to

the MINEX II API specification and a card supporting the MINEX II APDUs. Both APIs are documented in the accompanying

MINEX II Evaluation Plan [9].

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

9
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Vendor ID BITs Min Max Sort Order

MX2-IV-A 2 0 68 None Given (0x00)

MX2-IV-B 2 0 68 None Given (0x00)

MX2-IV-C 2 3 128 None Given (0x00)

MX2-IV-D 2 3 128 None Given (0x00)

MX2-IV-E 1 0 60 Y-X Ascending (0x09)

MX2-IV-F 1 0 80 Y-X Ascending (0x09)

MX2-IV-G 2 0 128 None Given (0x00)

MX2-IV-H 2 0 128 None Given (0x00)

MX2-IV-I 2 0 128 None Given (0x00)

MX2-IV-J 2 0 80 None Given (0x00)

MX2-IV-K 2 0 80 Y-X Ascending (0x09)

MX2-IV-L 2 0 80 Y-X Ascending (0x09)

MX2-IV-M 2 0 64 Y-X Ascending (0x09)

MX2-IV-N 2 9 64 Polar Distance Ascending (0x11)

MX2-IV-O 2 9 64 Polar Distance Ascending (0x11)

MX2-IV-P 1 9 64 Polar Distance Ascending (0x11)

MX2-IV-Q 1 10 60 X-Y Ascending (0x05)

Table 4: BIT parameters from the MINEX II cards. In all cases, when a vendor’s card had both BITs, they were identical.

NIST authored and released open-source software (see section A.1) for conversion of INCITS 378 to ISO/IEC 19794-2

COMPACT CARD templates. This operation respected the ISO/IEC 7816-11:2004 Biometric Information Template (BIT)

parameters for minutia count, and sort order. This process is described in detail in the evaluation plan [9].

Execution of the test can be summarized as a six stage process:

1. Validation of SDK functionality - This procedure has been document previously [8];

2. Validation of MOC functionality - The MATCH-ON-CARD procedure is to execute all necessary APDUs and check for

errors.

3. Use of (optional) SDK template generators to produce INCITS 378 templates, and retrieval of baseline ONGOING

MINEX templates from archival storage;

4. Reading and storage of ISO/IEC 7816-11:2004 BIT card capability records from the submitted cards. The salient

BIT properties are recorded in Table 4;

5. Execution of MATCH-OFF-CARD (i.e. using the SDK). This process embeds on-the-fly conversion of INCITS 378 to

ISO/IEC 19794-2 COMPACT CARD templates while respecting the BIT. The number of template comparisons was

2747804 for each matcher tested11

6. Repetition of 20000 template comparisons on the card, timing thereof, and crosscheck of matcher scores against

the SDK output.

7. None of the comparisons involved impostors presenting left as right, or vice versa.

2.3 Fingerprint datasets

A single corpus of fingerprint images was used for MINEX II testing. This is referred to as the POEBVA data set, and

it is identical to that described in the MINEX 04 report [8] except that more samples have been drawn from the same

population. The dataset is distinguished from many biometric testing corpora in two valuable ways:

. First, the enrollment and authentication images are collected at separate locations in different environments with

different sensors. The BVA images are collected as part of a non-immigrant visa application process. The POE

images are collected later when the subject crosses the U.S. border at a Port of Entry.

11This test is repeated for each combination of template generators.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

10
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

On Card Off Card

. Reference template generator is selected by manufacturer

of issuance system, A. Format is ISO/IEC 19794-2.

. Matcher is selected by provider of card stock, B. It

compares ISO/IEC 19794-2 instances.

. Verification generator from reader maufacturer, C. It

would extract INCITS 378 data, and convert to ISO/IEC

19794-2.

. Often A = B 6= C; rarely A = B = C in which case a fully

proprietary template may be considered )

. Reference template generator is selected by manufacturer

of issuance system, A. Format is INCITS 378 or ISO/IEC

19794-2.

. Matcher selected by reader manufacturer, B. It compares

either INCITS 378 or ISO/IEC 19794-2 records.

. Verification template generator selected by reader

manufacturer, C. It prepares a INCITS 378 instance,

possibly supplemented with proprietary features.

. Often A 6= B, B = C

Table 5: Typical relationships and roles in interoperable applications.

. Second, the POE authentication images were collected without human intervention in an autocapture process. This

embeds an automated quality-in-the-loop assessment to select the best image, ahead of a timeout. This has the

effect of elevating overall quality.

Together these aspects enhance the operational relevance of the MINEX II results.

2.4 Interoperabilty

The MINEX II study addressed the conventional logical or physical access paradigm in which a user’s smart card, populated with a reference template provided by vendor A and a matching algorithm from vendor B, is used in an authentication attempt in which a template is generated from an acquired image by the generator from a third vendor, C. This

tripartite scenario was examined in MINEX 04 and error rates were generally degraded relative to the case where the verification template generator and matcher were provided by the same supplier, as they may well be in off-card matching.

Table 5 summarizes typical bipartite and tripartite relationships in federated interoperable applications.

3 METRICS

3.1 Performance measures

The direct and proper way to quantify accuracy and interoperability is in terms of false non-match and false match error

rates, FNMR and FMR. The quantities are computed empirically. If s denotes a matcher comparison score obtained by

comparing two samples from the same person, and M(τ ) is the number of such scores below threshold, τ ,

M(τ ) = X

s∈G

1 − H(s − τ ) (1)

where G denotes the set of all genuine comparison scores, and H(x) is the step function defined here as

H(x) = 

0 x < 0

1 x ≥ 0

(2)

The inequality placement ensures that scores equal to the threshold correspond to acceptance. FNMR is then the fraction

of genuine comparisons for which the score is below the operating threshold:

FNMR(τ ) = M(τ )

M(∞)

(3)

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

11
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

where M(∞) is just the number of genuine comparisons considered. Likewise, when s denotes a score obtained by

comparing samples from different persons, and N(τ ) is the number of scores at or above threshold, τ ,

N(τ ) = X

s∈I

H(s − τ ) (4)

where I denotes the set of all impostor scores. FMR is then the fraction of impostor comparisons resulting in a score less

that or equal to the operating threshold:

FMR(τ ) = N(τ )

N(∞)

(5)

FMR is regarded as a measure of security, i.e. the fraction of illegitmate matching attempts that result in success.

These error rates must be understood as being matching error rates, not transactional rates. The ISO/IEC SC 37 Working

Group 5 has established different terms for these rates: FMR and FNMR refer to comparisons of single samples, while

FAR and FRR apply to the outcome of a human-system transaction in which a user might, for example, make multiple

attempts and multiple finger placements.

3.2 Pooled comparisons

Fingerprint NIST IBIA

Vendor ID ID

Cogent A 00170A47

Dermalog B 000D088E

Bioscrypt C 00020004

Sagem Morpho D 001D0100

Neurotechnologija E 00310100

Innovatrics F 00350A01

NEC G 00118201

Cross Match Technologies N 00180406

L1/Identix 1C 000C0D60

Precise Biometrics 1D 000B0100

XTec 1F 00340035

SecuGen 1G 000A0035

BIO-key International 1J 00300258

Motorola 1L 002E0101

Aware 1M 003B0101

Sonda Technologies 1N 003C0101

Neurotechnologija 1T 00310101

Aware 1Y 003B0102

ImageWare 2A 00430011

Table 6: Suppliers of Ongoing MINEX compliant template

generators

Accuracy depends not only on the MOC algorithm, but also heavily

on the template generators used for preparation of the reference and

authentication templates. This arises because minutia detection and

localization is a non-trivial task for which some algorithms are better

than others. It has been demonstrated that matching accuracy often

is substantially better if either or both of the templates was produced

by the provider of the matching algorithm. While this preference for

“home-grown” templates is contrary to the goals of a standard template, it nevertheless remains true because no good, open, standard

minutia detection algorithm exists.

Therefore in order to compare matching algorithms, this report (for

the first time) uses a template pooling technique for accuracy estimation. This was suggested by a Phase III participant in order to

avoid the bias introduced by selecting particular template generators. Pooling is implemented as follows. In Equations 1 and 4 the

sets G and I are actually the union of comparison scores obtained by

comparing templates from K > 1 generators applied to the same set

of input images. In this case, three pools are used:

. Pool 1 corresponds to the templates produced by the K = 19

generators listed in Table 6. Most of these suppliers did

not take part in the MINEX II evaluation but their templates

are archived in support of the ONGOING MINEX program12.

. Pool 2 corresponds to the templates from the K = 5 template

generators submitted to MINEX II i.e. MX2-IV-{A,C,E,G,K}.

. Pool 3 corresponds to the templates from the K = 24 template

generators present in Pool 1 and 2.

Pooling is operationally representative to the extent that verification templates, produced in the field on arbitrary card

12See http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

12
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

readers, come from the minutia detectors in the pool in equal proportions. Practically some products would be more

commonly used than others. Operational use cases are shown in Table 5.

3.3 One and two finger matching

This report contains performance estimates for one and two-finger authentication. The single-finger results are obtained

by pooling the scores from the left and right index finger comparisons as though they were from different individuals.

The performance estimates are therefore representative of single-finger verification applications in which users choose to

present either left or right index fingers in equal proportion. This report does not assess the effect of multiple verification

attempts because it uses archived datasets with only two impressions per finger. Note, however, that the images were

collected using the auto-capture paradigm in which a number of images were collected over an interval of a few seconds,

and the best one (according to a commercial quality assessment algorithm) retained.

Two mechanisms were used for combining two-finger matching scores: score-level fusion, and decision-level fusion.

. Score Fusion: The fused score is simply the sum of the left and right comparison scores:

sij = s

(R)

ij + s

(L)

ij (6)

where i and j denote the i-th enrolled image and the j-th authentication sample and s is the scalar output of a

matcher. This sum-rule is a simple yet powerful method for multi-sample fusion, is ubiquitous in the literature

[13, 10], and has long had theoretical recommendation [11]. The fused score is compared against a threshold, and

error rates are again computed using eqs. 5 and 3.

The use of fusion, however, has significant implications. In sum-rule fusion, FNMR rates drop substantially for a

given FMR but there is the attendant requirement to always acquire and match samples from both fingers. This will

generally double the time, the exception being if two sensors are available and used simultaneously.

. Decision (“OR”) Fusion: The more efficient alternative is to only conditionally acquire and compare the second

finger. That is, if recognition of a genuine user or impostor is unsuccessful with the first finger, then the second

finger is acquired and matched. This constitutes decision-level “OR” fusion. The idea is that many genuine users

will require only a single finger to authenticate while the FMR security objective is met after one or maybe two

fingers have been presented.

3.4 Thresholds in the DET computation

As is typical in offline testing [2], this report does not fix an operating threshold but instead uses all the scores from a

matcher as thresholds that could be used in actual operation.

This testing practice contrasts with fielded MATCH-ON-CARD applications in which the card is configured with a fixed

operating threshold, against which a decision is rendered.

For MINEX II we required the SDK and the card to produce integer matcher scores on at most [0, 65535]. The advantage

over just producing true-false decisions is that it allows a survey over all operating points, t, and the production of a DET

characteristic. This is a plot of FNMR(t) against FMR(t)

13 and, as the primary output of a biometric performance test, is

vital in establishing the tradeoff between the inconvenience associated with incorrect rejection of legitimate users, and

the incorrect acceptance of fraudulent users. The production of similarity scores also allows a threshold calibration - i.e.

FMR as a function of threshold.

13DET characteristics sometimes plot Normal deviates, i.e. a plot in which the FNMR and FMR are (nonlinearly) transformed by the inverse CDF of

N(0, 1). This is abandoned here because the score densities are not Normal.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

13
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

3.5 Thresholds for computation of interoperability matrices

Setting an operational threshold is often a sensitive issue because of implications for security, convenience, throughput,

and cost. It is always application specific. Although this report makes no recommendations on threshold setting, it has

necessarily adopted “default” performance figures of merit in support of comparison objectives. Unless stated otherwise,

the results in this report correspond to the threshold that produces a FMR of 0.01. The figure of merit is the FNMR at that

point. The value 0.01 should not be construed as a recommended operating point but as a value at which error rate

differences may be readily observed.

The interoperability matrices show FNMR for fixed FMR values, e.g. f = 0.01. However, this requires the computation

of FNMR(t0) for t0 = FMR−1(f), and while this is trivial for continuous matcher scores it is not so for tied integer

scores. The inverse FMR computation is approximate because there is no value for which FMR(t0) is exactly f. So the

threshold actually used, t, is the lowest observed score value for which FMR(t) ≤ f. In some cases this yields FMR values

substantially below the target f. This is a conservative policy decision in the sense that FMR is on the “safe” side of f.

Number of unique score values

Genuine Impostor All

MX2-IV-A 2706 919 2723

MX2-IV-B 2627 846 2643

MX2-IV-C 19913 8536 20001

MX2-IV-D 19675 8698 19988

MX2-IV-E 31467 4130 31577

MX2-IV-F 31455 4155 31563

MX2-IV-G 8942 586 8942

MX2-IV-H 8920 586 8920

MX2-IV-I 8942 586 8942

MX2-IV-J 8944 587 8944

MX2-IV-K 17289 5405 17766

MX2-IV-L 59758 19693 62139

MX2-IV-M 32749 10284 32752

MX2-IV-N 30238 16567 31829

MX2-IV-O 30238 16567 31829

MX2-IV-P 30238 16567 31829

MX2-IV-Q 1000 533 1001

Table 7: Number of unique similarity scores. The implementations provided in Phases III and IV (from MX2N

onwards) produce larger numbers of scores than those

prior. Early Oberthur-ID3 algorithms produced fewer than 30

unique impostor scores. The Phase II report concluded that

such low numbers inhibit fine-grained threshold setting and

FMR.

This issue is especially apparent in MATCH-ON-CARD implementations because, as Table 7 shows, some algorithms emit only a limited

number of unique scores, perhaps as a result of a need to conserve

computational resources. The values are observations over O(107)

comparisons. In principle, each value can be used as a threshold

against which acceptance and rejection decisions are based. The lack

of possible impostor values precludes a fine grained setting of security policy. The MINEX 04 matchers exhibited many more unique

values. The fused scores used in Table 10 take on more unique values

because of the eq.(6) sum.

This issue is not critical for DETs, which plot the error rates at all

possible thresholds with straight lines connecting them. Note, that

theory indicates [12] that points on the convex hull of the DET curve

between two operating thresholds are accessible by randomly using

one or the other for each comparison. The operational use of this

practice is not known.

3.6 Handling failure to enroll

The MINEX test protocols have all required template generators to

produce a standard template whatever the input image. Thus if a

template generator was presented with an image of such poor quality that it would operationally reject it (i.e. a failure to enroll), the output in MINEX II is nevertheless required to be

a template that is a valid input to the matcher. The template is allowed to contain zero minutiae. Such templates are

formally conformant to INCITS 378.

When a SDK-based or MOC-based algorithm is presented with a zero minutiae template it will produce a low similarity

score (e.g. zero). The effect of this in an impostor comparison is a correct rejection and improved FMR. For a genuine

transaction, the result is a false non-match and degraded FNMR .

4 MATCH-ON-CARD ACCURACY

4.1 Uncertainty estimates

This section includes estimates of various false non-match rate (FNMR ) and false match rates (FMR ). These were estimated over fixed numbers of template comparisons.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

14
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

. For single finger matching, the number of genuine and impostor comparisons was 247924 and 2499880 respectively

corresponding to the use of two impressions of each of the left and right index fingers of 123962 unique subjects.

The left index finger from each subject was compared with up to ten other left index fingers. The right index finger

was compared with the right index finger of the same individuals. Each finger of each subject was used in only

one genuine comparison.

. For two-finger matching, the number of genuine and impostor comparisons was 123962 and 1249940. Again subjects were reused up to ten times.

The error rates follow binomial statistics, such that if experiments of the same size were repeated using samples drawn

from the same population then, with 95% coverage, the error rate measurement would fall between p − u ≤ p ≤ p + u

where p is the true error rate,

u = Φ−1

1−α/2

(p(1 − p)/N)

1

2 (7)

Φ

−1

is the inverse cumulative Normal, and α = 0.05. This Normal approximation to the binomial distribution leads to

the following estimates of uncertainty.

. for FMR = p = 0.0001, N = 1249940, u = 0.00002,

. for FMR = p = 0.01, N = 1249940, u = 0.0002, and

. for FNMR = p = 0.01, N = 123962, u = 0.0006.

. for FNMR = p = 0.1, N = 123962, u = 0.0017.

These estimates apply to the population of fingerprints identified in section 2.3 and do not represent systematic effects

associated with the caveats identified on page 3.

4.2 Results

Table 8 is the most important set of results in the report. Each row summarizes MATCH-ON-CARD false non-match rates

for one of the algorithms submitted to MINEX II. The left and right sides refers to single-finger and two-finger authentication respectively. For each case, there are four entries corresponding to which minutia detection algorithms were

used to prepare the reference and authentication templates. The last of these, referred to as POOL-2 POOL3, represents

the case where comparisons of templates from many generators are used in the accuracy calculation. This case is further

displayed in the Detection Error Tradeoff (DET) characteristics of Figures 1, 3 and 2. Regarding Table 8 and the DETs, we

make the following observations.

. There is a large variation in accuracy between MATCH-ON-CARD matchers. In the operationally relevant range,

0.0001 ≤ FMR ≤ 0.01, the DETs show that FNMR for the most accurate algorithms is about a factor of three lower

than that for the least accurate.

. False non-match rates at FMR = 0.0001 are between two and four times worse than those at FMR = 0.01.

. The two-finger false non-match rates are an order of magnitude lower than the single-finger rates. This is apparent

in the single-finger vs. OR-fused DET plots of Figures 1 and 2, and in the two halves of Table 8.

. The two-finger false non-match rates are often the same for sum-rule and OR-rule fusion. This is apparent in the

DET plots of Figures 3 and 2.

. Which templates are used in a comparison also has a large influence on accuracy. For single finger authentication,

the use of the MX2-IV-C template generator gives FNMR about two thirds of those achieved using the matcherprovider’s native template generator. When two fingers are available, the improvement can exceed a factor of

two.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

15
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

FMR

FNMR

0.03

0.1

1e−04 3e−04 0.001 0.003 0.01 0.03 0.1

MX2−IV−AMX2−IV−BMX2−IV−CMX2−IV−D

MX2−IV−EMX2−IV−FMX2−IV−GMX2−IV−H

MX2−IV−IMX2−IV−JMX2−IV−KMX2−IV−L

MX2−IV−MMX2−IV−NMX2−IV−OMX2−IV−P

MX2−IV−Q

Figure 1: FNMR vs. FMR for all MATCH-ON-CARD algorithms for single finger reference and authentication template comparisons. The reference templates are those of Pool 2. Theauthentication templates are those of Pool 3 (see section 3.2) such that these DETs are estimated over 5(19 + 5)

N = 120

N comparisons from each of two fingers, for a total of 240

N. The

MX2-IV-{G,H,I} implementations use identical matching algorithms and the plots therefore lie on top of eachother. This holds also for MX2-IV-{N,O,P}.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

16
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

FMR

FNMR

0.003

0.030.01

1e−04 3e−04 0.001 0.003 0.01 0.03 0.1

MX2−IV−AMX2−IV−BMX2−IV−CMX2−IV−D

MX2−IV−EMX2−IV−FMX2−IV−GMX2−IV−H

MX2−IV−IMX2−IV−JMX2−IV−KMX2−IV−L

MX2−IV−MMX2−IV−NMX2−IV−OMX2−IV−P

MX2−IV−Q

Figure 2: FNMR vs. FMR for all MATCH-ON-CARD algorithms for the left-OR-right finger fusion of reference and authentication template comparisons. The reference templates are those

of Pool 2. The authentication templates are those of Pool 3 (see section 3.2) such that these DETs are estimated over 5(19+ 5)

N = 120

N comparisons. The MX2-IV-{G,H,I} implementations

use identical matching algorithms and the plots therefore lie on top of eachother. This holds also for MX2-IV-{N,O,P}.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

17
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

FMR

FNMR

0.003

0.030.01

1e−04 3e−04 0.001 0.003 0.01 0.03 0.1

MX2−IV−AMX2−IV−BMX2−IV−CMX2−IV−D

MX2−IV−EMX2−IV−FMX2−IV−GMX2−IV−H

MX2−IV−IMX2−IV−JMX2−IV−KMX2−IV−L

MX2−IV−MMX2−IV−NMX2−IV−OMX2−IV−P

MX2−IV−Q

Figure 3: FNMR vs. FMR for all MATCH-ON-CARD algorithms for the sum-rule fusion of scores of left and right finger reference and authentication template comparisons. The reference

templates are those of Pool 2. The authentication templates are those of Pool 3 (see section 3.2) such that these DETs are estimated over 5(19 + 5)

N = 120

N comparisons. The MX2-IV-

{G,H,I} implementations use identical matching algorithms and the plots therefore lie on top of eachother. This holds also for MX2-IV-{N,O,P}.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

18
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

SINGLE FINGER TWO FINGER (OR-FUSED)

FMR = 0.0005 FMR = 0.001 (APPROXIMATELY DOUBLE SINGLE-FINGER FMR )

BEST-BEST PREF-PREF PREF-POOL3 POOL2-POOL3 BEST-BEST PREF-PREF PREF-POOL3 POOL2-POOL3

MX2-IV-A 0.0163 0.0372 0.0617 0.0494 0.0015 0.0057 0.0132 0.0095

MX2-IV-B 0.0388 0.0698 0.1537 0.1296 0.0051 0.0148 0.0555 0.0421

MX2-IV-C 0.0179 0.0179 0.0384 0.0485 0.0014 0.0014 0.0051 0.0077

MX2-IV-D 0.0151 0.0151 0.0325 0.0419 0.0012 0.0012 0.0042 0.0064

MX2-IV-E 0.0311 0.0427 0.0707 0.0707 0.0030 0.0053 0.0132 0.0135

MX2-IV-F 0.0314 0.0469 0.0713 0.0698 0.0031 0.0061 0.0132 0.0130

MX2-IV-G 0.0189 0.0327 0.0489 0.0451 0.0017 0.0039 0.0080 0.0070

MX2-IV-H 0.0189 0.0327 0.0489 0.0451 0.0017 0.0040 0.0080 0.0070

MX2-IV-I 0.0189 0.0327 0.0489 0.0451 0.0017 0.0039 0.0080 0.0070

MX2-IV-J 0.0189 0.0327 0.0495 0.0457 0.0017 0.0040 0.0082 0.0072

MX2-IV-K 0.0249 0.0348 0.0535 0.0583 0.0023 0.0044 0.0094 0.0108

MX2-IV-L 0.0247 0.0347 0.0534 0.0582 0.0023 0.0044 0.0094 0.0107

MX2-IV-M 0.0173 0.0240 0.0410 0.0474 0.0017 0.0031 0.0073 0.0090

MX2-IV-N 0.0283 0.0451 0.0629 0.0629 0.0025 0.0060 0.0115 0.0115

MX2-IV-O 0.0283 0.0451 0.0629 0.0629 0.0025 0.0060 0.0115 0.0115

MX2-IV-P 0.0283 0.0451 0.0629 0.0629 0.0025 0.0060 0.0115 0.0115

MX2-IV-Q 0.0441 0.0673 0.0921 0.0921 0.0053 0.0118 0.0208 0.0208

Table 8: FNMR values for single-finger and OR-fused two-finger verification, by MOC algorithm (rows) and template source (columns). The FMR

values identified on the second row were selected to be operationally realistic. The two-finger value is twice that of the single finger since MOC

implementations using two fingers and a fixed threshold give approximately twice the FMR that would be achieved if only one finger were available

(see section 7). For two finger verification, cells are shaded green when FNMR≤ 0.01. For one finger verification, cells are shaded yellow when

FNMR≤ 0.025.

The templates come from the four sources indicated in the column headers.

. BEST-BEST: Both reference and authentication templates are produced by the most interoperable template generator, MX2-IV-C.

. PREF-PREF: The native case in which the reference and authentication templates come from the matcher’s preferred template generator i.e. that supplied with the matcher or the POOL-2 set (see section 3.2) if the provider did not submit a template generator.

. PREF-POOL3: The authentication templates come from POOL-3, and the reference template comes from the matcher’s preferred

template generator or from POOL-2 if the provider did not submit a template generator.

. POOL2-POOL3: The authentication templates come from POOL-3, and the reference templates from POOL-2. The last five rows are

identical in the preferred and pooled columns.

The third column is probably the most operationally relevant because MOC algorithms will often reside on cards populated with reference

templates generated by the same provider as the matcher. However, the first and fourth columns allow for the purest comparison of just

the MOC algorithms because the matchers all compare identical sets of templates.

. When templates from all sources are used, the FNMR values increase again reflecting the diversity of performance

of minutia detectioon algorithms. For single finger authentication, false rejection is approximately 1.5 times to

more than 2 times more frequent than if the templates are sourced natively. Specific instances of poor template

generation are identified later, in the interoperability matrices of section 6.

. Pooling represents the use of templates from all generators in equal proportion. This would occur operationally

only if system operators ignored performance data in their procurements. The use of pooling here is a form of

averaging of results. Thus comparing the third and fourth columns in Table 8, the Neurotechnology and Precise

Biometrics algorithms give lower FNMR using Pool 2 templates, because the pool is better overall than their own

generator. For Morpho and Innovatrics, Pool 2 gives worse FNMR than the native generators.

. If decision-level OR-fusion is used by setting a fixed threshold (in the card) and allowing verification with either

finger, the FMR values are almost exactly double that of single finger operation. This is detailed later in section

7. Prior versions of this report included an analysis of how often a user would have to present the second finger

given some FMR objective.

. SUM-rule fusion is not shown in Table 8. It is slightly more accurate than decision level left OR right fusion. However, SUM-score fusion is less realistic for MATCH-ON-CARD because the fusion would have to executed on card

after presentation of both fingers. The OR-fusion is preferable because it is easily implemented on or off the card.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

19
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

4.3 Can MOC be deployed with one vendor

The attraction of a fully standards-compliant biometrics solution is that credentials issued by one organization can be

verified at another organization and there is no requirement that the two organizations buy the same products. The

interoperabiliy matrices that appear later in this report indicate that biometric interoperability is not a yes/no variable. Rather, accuracy of a verification application is dependent (as a continuous variable) on which (minutia detection)

equipment was originally used to prepare the crediential, and to prepare the authentication template.

If, however, the political and contractual environment was such that MATCH-ON-CARD could be procured from a single

vendor then better accuracy can be realized: See the lower error rates in the PREF-PREF columns of Table 8 versus the

Pooled columns. In such cases a fully proprietary solution might, in principle, be procured, e.g. by a single corporation

seeking to do access control for its employees. However, the buyer is then vulnerable to vendor lock in: Any migration

to a new supplier’s products necessitates modification or, in the worst case, replacement of all cards and all readers.

A middle ground exists where one supplier’s products will be procured, but the solutions will be entirely standardsbased. Thus a credential can be used with templates from other providers even if it typically is not. Table 8 is intended

to show that lower error rates are available only to the extent that a single-vendor standards-compliant application is a

commercially and politically tenable proposition.

5 MATCH-ON-CARD SPEED

5.1 Measurement method

For each card submitted, NIST measured the duration of all executions of the following actions.

. Reference template storage operations made using the PUT DATA APDU,

. Template comparisons using the VERIFY APDU which includes sending of the verification template to the card, and

. The similarity score retrieval operations made via the GET DATA APDU.

Team T PutData T Verify T GetData

MX2-IV-A 0.254 0.225 0.033

MX2-IV-B 0.246 0.148 0.033

MX2-IV-C 0.090 0.147 0.021

MX2-IV-D 0.144 0.517 0.026

MX2-IV-E 0.159 0.076 0.017

MX2-IV-F 0.264 0.085 0.017

MX2-IV-G 0.150 0.080 0.018

MX2-IV-H 0.942 1.272 0.029

MX2-IV-I 0.283 0.310 0.020

MX2-IV-J 0.287 0.317 0.020

MX2-IV-K 2.132 1.173 0.028

MX2-IV-L 1.209 1.338 0.120

MX2-IV-M 1.177 0.537 0.024

MX2-IV-N 0.694 0.377 0.023

MX2-IV-O 0.893 0.606 0.021

MX2-IV-P 1.053 0.718 0.035

MX2-IV-Q 0.071 1.007 0.025

Table 9: Three median durations: 1. VERIFY commands for

genuine comparisons - more complete information is given in

Figure 4. These cells are shaded green and darkgreen for times

less than 0.2 and 0.5 seconds respectively. 2. PUTDATA of the

reference data. This may be relevant in high volume bulk card

preparation processes. 3. GETDATA is fast and only relevant

in tests like MINEX II because cards do not return scores operationally.

The time taken to generate the verification template is not included

in the above. For the MX2D generator (of Table 1), the median time to

convert an in-memory uncompressed greyscale raster image into an

INCITS 378 record was 0.094 seconds for the 368x368 pixel POE verification image and 0.172 seconds for the 500x500 pixel BVA enrolment

image. For these two datasets, the 99-th percentile times were, 0.11

and 0.19 seconds respectively. These times apply to Xeon-based PCs.

These times were measured by means of the Linux gettimeofday() system call. The NIST card test driver wraps each APDU in two such

calls, and the interval is obtained by subtraction. This is shown in

the driver source code, which may be downloaded and inspected

via the NIST open-source server (see BIOMAPP, section A.2).

While the gettimeofday() call offers better than microsecond resolution on the platform we used for testing, the measured durations

include more than just the elemental card operations. The overhead includes all the calls to the PC/SC library, communication from

the card driver process to the PC/SC smartcard daemon, and USB

communication. The effect of these is assumed to be fixed across

all MATCH-ON-CARD implementations tested. In particular, the host

computer was dedicated to the testing of the cards, with only normal

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

20
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

operating system related and file system processes running. These

processes have small system resources overhead.

The hardware listed in Appendix B was disclosed to participants before the test. MINEX II did not test other configurations, and while we understand that faster end-to-end times may be possible using alternative hardware and protocols,

the timing method used here is fair and consistent for comparison of implementations.

5.2 Results

Template comparison time

SDK

MX2−IV−E

MX2−IV−G

MX2−IV−F

MX2−IV−C

MX2−IV−B

MX2−IV−A

MX2−IV−I

MX2−IV−J

MX2−IV−N

MX2−IV−D

MX2−IV−M

MX2−IV−O

MX2−IV−P

MX2−IV−Q

MX2−IV−K

MX2−IV−H

MX2−IV−L

0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10

Genuine

0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10

Impostor

Figure 4: Time for MATCH-ON-CARD verification. The units are seconds. The values are durations

of ISO/IEC 7816 VERIFY commands for all MINEX II cards broken out for genuine and impostor

comparisons. The duration scale is logarithmic. The vertical red lines are drawn arbitrarily at 0.5

seconds. The boxes indicate the interquartile range. The green crosses indicate outliers beyond

those expected in the tails of a Normal distribution.

Table 9 shows median durations of the

ISO/IEC 7816-4 PUTDATA (used for initial installation of the enrollment template), the VERIFY command (for genuine comparisons), and the GETDATA

command used to retrieve similarity

scores. The speed of the PUTDATA

command is operationally irrelevant

except perhaps in a bulk card preparation run. The speed of the GETDATA

command is fast and only relevant in

tests like MINEX II because cards do not

return scores operationally.

Figure 4 gives expanded information

for the speed of the core MOC command VERIFY. It shows the distributions of the times taken to execute genuine and impostor comparisons. The

plots are derived from 1210 genuine

and 19424 impostor trials. Note that

the card specifications are not known

- NIST did not ask for information related to card processor, memory, nor

cost. It is likely that suppliers submitted their recent and more capable and

expensive cards to the test.

The following observations also summarize the results of Figure 5 which

shows the industry-wide tradespace

between FNMR and VERIFY time.

. The MX2-IV-E, F and G implementations VERIFY a genuine user in about 0.08 seconds (median). MX2-IV-C completes this in about 0.15 seconds. These were submitted by three different teams (see key at bottom of page). These

implementations achieve the PIV interoperability error rate requirements.

. There are considerable differences in the variances of the times - the MX2-IV-C algorithm compares templates with

little variance. The faster algorithms MX2-IV-{E,F,G} all have higher variance and worst-case timings.

. These times are fast enough that they are becoming a negligible and imperceptible part of the duration of a human

authentication attempt.

. The MX2-IV-F and C implementations run almost four times faster than essentially the same algorithms submitted

in Phase III (and listed in Table 1). The MX2-IV-F vs. MX2Q times were 0.085s and 0.294 seconds respectively. The

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

21
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

MX2-IV-C and MX2D times were 0.147 and 0.517 seconds respectively. In addition, the best times are about twice

as fast as the fastest implementation tested previously, MX2G, which had a median VERIFY time of 0.16 seconds.

. Moreover these speed increases have been obtained with the identical PC/SC hardware and firmware used in prior

MINEX II phases. Faster firmware is apparently available from the manufacturer (see Appendix B) although this

has not been tested. We maintained the same communications specifications to afford comparability across phases.

. The most accurate algorithm, MX2-IV-D from Morpho, takes a median of 0.517 seconds to execute a genuine user’s

VERIFY APDU.

. The four Precise Biometrics implementations submitted on four cards, MX2-IV-G, H, I and J, are equally accurate

- they each run almost identical algorithms. The median duration of a MOC comparison is 0.080, 1.272, 0.310 and

0.317 seconds respectively. The order of magnitude variation is related almost entirely to the card in use. This may

afford customers a cost-speed tradeoff.

. The MX2-IV-K and L meet the PIV interoperability error rate requirements. These card-algorithm pairs have slower

median VERIFY durations of 1.173 and 1.338 seconds respectively.

. The MX2-IV-M implementation executes in 0.537 seconds. This algorithm, if paired with a suitable template generator, would meet PIV error rate requirements.

6 INTEROPERABILITY

The question of whether a MATCH-ON-CARD matcher would qualify for the U.S. Government’s Personal Identity Verification (PIV) program is addressed here by subjecting the MATCH-ON-CARD implementation to the NIST Special Publication 800-76-1 interoperable accuracy specification. This states that a matcher submitted for PIV shall be capable of

verifying INCITS 378 templates from all previously qualified template generators. This measurement activity is conducted by NIST under the ONGOING MINEX name. The process requires the supplier of the matcher to also submit a

template generator. This requirement derives from the MATCH-OFF-CARD situation in which the reader is equipped with

a sensor, template generator and matcher. However, because NIST acceeded to requests from the industry to allow submission of a MATCH-ON-CARD algorithm without an accompanying template generator, we are only able to conduct the

following simulation of the PIV assessment process.

We use the Table 6 subset of ONGOING MINEX qualified template generators to prepare authentication templates for

comparison against others stored on the card. These other templates come from the participant-provided MINEX II

submitted generator or the POOL 2 group of generators, or in some cases MX2-IV-C as a capable default. In any case the

source of reference templates is show in the column header of the interoperability matrices that follow. This mimics the

case in which the issuer of the card were to populate the card with templates from the MOC algorithm owner’s generator,

from all such suppliers, or by licensing Morpho’s new template generator otherwise.

From the interoperability matrices of Tables 10 to 14 we make the observations below. The Tables include, on the third-tolast row (labeled “POOL-1”), the false non-match rates produced when a matcher compares templates from the matcher

preferred generator and all templates from all generators listed in Table 6. This represents the operational case of a

federated application in which users interact, in equal proporation, with readers equipped with those generators.

. From Table 10, the columns shaded entirely green indicate that algorithms MX2-IV-C through MX2-IX-L would

attain compliance with the PIV specification14.

. Table 10 shows that the MX2-IX-M implementation meets the PIV interoperability specification. However, it would

not do so if coupled with the POOL-2 templates because, when matching authentication templates from Precise

14Note that additional template generators have been added to the PIV-compliant list (see http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex) since this set was

initially selected for the MINEX II trials

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

22
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011 Nfing 2 Column = MATCH-ON-CARD algorithm MX2-IV-x, Row = INCITS 378 generator Matcher MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-B MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-D MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-F MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-H MX2-IV-I MX2-IV-J MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-L MX2-IV-M MX2-IV-N MX2-IV-O MX2-IV-P MX2-IV-Q Generator MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-K POOL2 POOL2 POOL2 POOL2

A 0.0112 0.0390 0.0027 0.0019 0.0071 0.0072 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0038 0.0053 0.0053 0.0031 0.0083 0.0083 0.0083 0.0126B 0.0071 0.0285 0.0020 0.0016 0.0047 0.0042 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0043 0.0044 0.0025 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0141C 0.0075 0.0273 0.0027 0.0022 0.0047 0.0038 0.0034 0.0035 0.0034 0.0035 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0091 0.0091 0.0091 0.0143D 0.0069 0.0208 0.0016 0.0013 0.0044 0.0043 0.0036 0.0035 0.0035 0.0036 0.0038 0.0037 0.0030 0.0061 0.0061 0.0061 0.0115E 0.0048 0.0133 0.0032 0.0024 0.0039 0.0039 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0035 0.0048 0.0049 0.0050 0.0083 0.0083 0.0083 0.0095F 0.0074 0.0276 0.0027 0.0021 0.0048 0.0038 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0090 0.0090 0.0090 0.0142G 0.0069 0.0243 0.0021 0.0017 0.0039 0.0033 0.0031 0.0030 0.0031 0.0032 0.0044 0.0044 0.0036 0.0076 0.0076 0.0076 0.0112N 0.0095 0.0238 0.0043 0.0036 0.0060 0.0061 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0073 0.0072 0.0064 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.01381C 0.0032 0.0109 0.0019 0.0013 0.0023 0.0022 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.00621D 0.0142 0.0362 0.0054 0.0047 0.0075 0.0059 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0053 0.0077 0.0077 0.0085 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.02011F 0.0121 0.0303 0.0042 0.0034 0.0081 0.0071 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0058 0.0073 0.0074 0.0059 0.0132 0.0132 0.0132 0.01591G 0.0121 0.0303 0.0042 0.0034 0.0082 0.0071 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0058 0.0074 0.0075 0.0060 0.0133 0.0133 0.0133 0.01591J 0.0086 0.0235 0.0029 0.0025 0.0070 0.0058 0.0038 0.0038 0.0037 0.0046 0.0038 0.0039 0.0050 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.01741L 0.0050 0.0183 0.0020 0.0014 0.0043 0.0042 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0035 0.0034 0.0026 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.00971M 0.0072 0.1280 0.0021 0.0017 0.0044 0.0040 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0038 0.0037 0.0028 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.01461N 0.0064 0.0198 0.0031 0.0026 0.0044 0.0040 0.0033 0.0034 0.0034 0.0037 0.0036 0.0036 0.0042 0.0086 0.0086 0.0086 0.01101T 0.0031 0.0088 0.0019 0.0014 0.0028 0.0027 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0027 0.0026 0.0024 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.00621Y 0.0065 0.1329 0.0019 0.0015 0.0040 0.0039 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0035 0.0036 0.0027 0.0067 0.0067 0.0067 0.01302A 0.0074 0.0273 0.0027 0.0022 0.0047 0.0038 0.0035 0.0035 0.0034 0.0035 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0091 0.0091 0.0091 0.0143MX2D 0.0069 0.0207 0.0016 0.0013 0.0043 0.0043 0.0035 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0039 0.0037 0.0029 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0114MX2-IV-A 0.0030 0.0086 0.0020 0.0013 0.0026 0.0026 0.0025 0.0026 0.0025 0.0025 0.0026 0.0025 0.0024 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0060MX2-IV-C 0.0030 0.0111 0.0007 0.0006 0.0023 0.0024 0.0020 0.0019 0.0019 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0015 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0060MX2-IV-E 0.0032 0.0113 0.0015 0.0011 0.0019 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0022 0.0018 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0068MX2-IV-G 0.0033 0.0113 0.0014 0.0011 0.0021 0.0021 0.0018 0.0017 0.0018 0.0018 0.0022 0.0022 0.0016 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0073MX2-IV-K 0.0035 0.0137 0.0014 0.0012 0.0023 0.0023 0.0020 0.0021 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0015 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0085POOL1 0.0079 0.0349 0.0028 0.0022 0.0052 0.0047 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0038 0.0046 0.0046 0.0040 0.0088 0.0088 0.0088 0.0130POOL2 0.0033 0.0114 0.0014 0.0011 0.0023 0.0024 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0022 0.0023 0.0018 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0070POOL3 0.0070 0.0303 0.0025 0.0020 0.0046 0.0042 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0035 0.0042 0.0042 0.0036 0.0079 0.0079 0.0079 0.0118

Table 10: Compliance to the PIV interoperability specification. Sum-fused two-finger FNMR values at FMR = 0.01 for the interoperable case in which the MINEX II matcher identified in

the column compares left and right index finger POE authentication templates produced by the generator identified in the row, against corresponding BVA reference templates from the

generator supplied with the matching algorithm, or POOL-2 if the supplier did not submit one. Yellow shaded cells indicate native combinations - i.e. matcher and template generators fromthe same provider. Green shaded cells indicate compliance with the PIV error rate specification, FNMR

≤ 0.01 at FMR

≤ 0.01.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

23
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011 Nfing 2 Column = MATCH-ON-CARD algorithm MX2-IV-x, Row = INCITS 378 generator Matcher MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-B MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-D MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-F MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-H MX2-IV-I MX2-IV-J MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-L MX2-IV-M MX2-IV-N MX2-IV-O MX2-IV-P MX2-IV-Q Generator POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2 POOL 2

A 0.0067 0.0268 0.0065 0.0041 0.0082 0.0082 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0058 0.0059 0.0038 0.0083 0.0083 0.0083 0.0126B 0.0044 0.0178 0.0033 0.0025 0.0050 0.0045 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0048 0.0048 0.0035 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0141C 0.0054 0.0203 0.0033 0.0028 0.0047 0.0038 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0031 0.0049 0.0049 0.0051 0.0091 0.0091 0.0091 0.0143D 0.0044 0.0145 0.0030 0.0023 0.0044 0.0043 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0046 0.0045 0.0039 0.0061 0.0061 0.0061 0.0115E 0.0044 0.0137 0.0042 0.0031 0.0044 0.0044 0.0034 0.0034 0.0033 0.0034 0.0045 0.0046 0.0049 0.0083 0.0083 0.0083 0.0095F 0.0054 0.0204 0.0033 0.0028 0.0047 0.0038 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0031 0.0049 0.0049 0.0051 0.0090 0.0090 0.0090 0.0142G 0.0048 0.0178 0.0032 0.0025 0.0046 0.0039 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0031 0.0044 0.0044 0.0039 0.0076 0.0076 0.0076 0.0112N 0.0082 0.0228 0.0061 0.0049 0.0061 0.0062 0.0056 0.0056 0.0056 0.0056 0.0076 0.0075 0.0073 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.01381C 0.0024 0.0087 0.0022 0.0017 0.0027 0.0027 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.00621D 0.0112 0.0287 0.0058 0.0050 0.0079 0.0063 0.0039 0.0039 0.0040 0.0050 0.0091 0.0091 0.0104 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.02011F 0.0097 0.0265 0.0065 0.0052 0.0083 0.0072 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0050 0.0080 0.0080 0.0072 0.0132 0.0132 0.0132 0.01591G 0.0097 0.0265 0.0065 0.0052 0.0083 0.0072 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0050 0.0080 0.0081 0.0072 0.0133 0.0133 0.0133 0.01591J 0.0064 0.0186 0.0041 0.0036 0.0068 0.0056 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 0.0039 0.0051 0.0051 0.0069 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.01741L 0.0036 0.0139 0.0033 0.0025 0.0045 0.0042 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0026 0.0036 0.0037 0.0031 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.00971M 0.0048 0.0848 0.0032 0.0025 0.0044 0.0040 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0047 0.0047 0.0040 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.01461N 0.0052 0.0166 0.0036 0.0030 0.0047 0.0041 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0033 0.0043 0.0043 0.0053 0.0086 0.0086 0.0086 0.01101T 0.0028 0.0090 0.0022 0.0018 0.0029 0.0028 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0049 0.0049 0.0049 0.00621Y 0.0045 0.0886 0.0031 0.0025 0.0040 0.0037 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0043 0.0043 0.0037 0.0067 0.0067 0.0067 0.01302A 0.0054 0.0203 0.0033 0.0028 0.0047 0.0038 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0031 0.0049 0.0049 0.0051 0.0091 0.0091 0.0091 0.0143MX2D 0.0044 0.0144 0.0030 0.0023 0.0043 0.0043 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0046 0.0045 0.0039 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0114MX2-IV-A 0.0027 0.0087 0.0022 0.0018 0.0028 0.0028 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0029 0.0029 0.0028 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0060MX2-IV-C 0.0019 0.0074 0.0017 0.0013 0.0026 0.0026 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0022 0.0022 0.0017 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0060MX2-IV-E 0.0021 0.0075 0.0020 0.0016 0.0025 0.0025 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0024 0.0024 0.0022 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0068MX2-IV-G 0.0023 0.0082 0.0018 0.0014 0.0025 0.0025 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0025 0.0025 0.0021 0.0036 0.0036 0.0036 0.0073MX2-IV-K 0.0025 0.0094 0.0018 0.0014 0.0025 0.0023 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0017 0.0027 0.0028 0.0022 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0085POOL1 0.0058 0.0256 0.0040 0.0032 0.0054 0.0048 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0034 0.0053 0.0053 0.0050 0.0088 0.0088 0.0088 0.0130POOL2 0.0023 0.0083 0.0019 0.0015 0.0026 0.0025 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0026 0.0026 0.0022 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0070POOL3 0.0051 0.0222 0.0036 0.0029 0.0048 0.0044 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0031 0.0048 0.0048 0.0044 0.0079 0.0079 0.0079 0.0118

Table 11: Interoperability matrix showing SUM-fused two-finger FNMR values at FMR = 0.01 for the interoperable case in which the MINEX II matcher identified in the column compares left

and right index finger POE authentication templates produced by the generator identified in the row, against corresponding BVA reference templates in POOL-2. This pooling means that in

any given row the matching algorithms compare identical sets of templates and this allows comparison of just the matching algorithms. This matrix is not the basis of the PIV certification

because PIV requires that the matcher identified in the column is accompanied by a template generator. Green shaded cells indicate compliance with the PIV error rate specification,

FNMR

≤ 0.01 at FMR

≤ 0.01.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

24
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011 Nfing 1 Column = MATCH-ON-CARD algorithm MX2-IV-x, Row = INCITS 378 generator Matcher MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-B MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-D MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-F MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-H MX2-IV-I MX2-IV-J MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-L MX2-IV-M MX2-IV-N MX2-IV-O MX2-IV-P MX2-IV-Q Generator MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-K POOL2 POOL2 POOL2 POOL2

A 0.0560 0.1233 0.0260 0.0195 0.0490 0.0490 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0344 0.0341 0.0241 0.0366 0.0366 0.0366 0.0566B 0.0368 0.0940 0.0193 0.0157 0.0328 0.0309 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.0257 0.0260 0.0206 0.0292 0.0292 0.0292 0.0536C 0.0376 0.0926 0.0231 0.0193 0.0333 0.0298 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0266 0.0227 0.0226 0.0237 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0556D 0.0348 0.0743 0.0157 0.0129 0.0308 0.0304 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0230 0.0231 0.0208 0.0262 0.0261 0.0261 0.0481E 0.0293 0.0572 0.0234 0.0188 0.0305 0.0305 0.0265 0.0265 0.0264 0.0265 0.0263 0.0263 0.0274 0.0315 0.0315 0.0315 0.0429F 0.0375 0.0926 0.0229 0.0193 0.0333 0.0299 0.0260 0.0261 0.0260 0.0268 0.0228 0.0226 0.0237 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0556G 0.0374 0.0877 0.0215 0.0177 0.0308 0.0291 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0255 0.0290 0.0288 0.0259 0.0314 0.0314 0.0314 0.0491N 0.0444 0.0809 0.0288 0.0247 0.0387 0.0391 0.0365 0.0364 0.0365 0.0365 0.0353 0.0351 0.0336 0.0389 0.0389 0.0389 0.05441C 0.0229 0.0512 0.0204 0.0155 0.0210 0.0207 0.0190 0.0190 0.0190 0.0190 0.0181 0.0181 0.0174 0.0228 0.0228 0.0228 0.03401D 0.0537 0.1012 0.0334 0.0285 0.0411 0.0356 0.0286 0.0287 0.0287 0.0318 0.0354 0.0355 0.0402 0.0454 0.0454 0.0454 0.06741F 0.0523 0.0965 0.0289 0.0244 0.0471 0.0442 0.0349 0.0350 0.0350 0.0358 0.0355 0.0358 0.0330 0.0430 0.0430 0.0430 0.06001G 0.0525 0.0965 0.0290 0.0245 0.0472 0.0443 0.0350 0.0350 0.0350 0.0358 0.0356 0.0359 0.0331 0.0431 0.0431 0.0431 0.06011J 0.0420 0.0820 0.0230 0.0203 0.0435 0.0388 0.0281 0.0280 0.0280 0.0316 0.0255 0.0254 0.0307 0.0393 0.0393 0.0393 0.06521L 0.0331 0.0728 0.0192 0.0154 0.0325 0.0317 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0236 0.0235 0.0197 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 0.04501M 0.0379 0.2889 0.0192 0.0157 0.0321 0.0308 0.0271 0.0271 0.0271 0.0271 0.0231 0.0230 0.0212 0.0298 0.0298 0.0298 0.05731N 0.0342 0.0707 0.0254 0.0206 0.0307 0.0293 0.0246 0.0246 0.0246 0.0256 0.0225 0.0223 0.0249 0.0301 0.0301 0.0301 0.04751T 0.0218 0.0424 0.0180 0.0144 0.0230 0.0226 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0183 0.0184 0.0187 0.0231 0.0232 0.0232 0.03401Y 0.0370 0.2943 0.0180 0.0148 0.0305 0.0298 0.0266 0.0267 0.0266 0.0267 0.0225 0.0225 0.0205 0.0290 0.0290 0.0290 0.05432A 0.0376 0.0926 0.0231 0.0193 0.0333 0.0299 0.0259 0.0259 0.0260 0.0266 0.0227 0.0226 0.0237 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0556MX2D 0.0347 0.0742 0.0157 0.0129 0.0300 0.0304 0.0259 0.0259 0.0260 0.0260 0.0230 0.0230 0.0206 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260 0.0477MX2-IV-A 0.0217 0.0418 0.0178 0.0143 0.0226 0.0227 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0213 0.0184 0.0182 0.0183 0.0229 0.0229 0.0229 0.0336MX2-IV-C 0.0230 0.0524 0.0101 0.0082 0.0225 0.0228 0.0184 0.0184 0.0185 0.0185 0.0163 0.0162 0.0129 0.0193 0.0193 0.0193 0.0334MX2-IV-E 0.0228 0.0523 0.0156 0.0123 0.0191 0.0196 0.0183 0.0183 0.0184 0.0184 0.0162 0.0162 0.0149 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0351MX2-IV-G 0.0236 0.0514 0.0160 0.0127 0.0206 0.0207 0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0168 0.0174 0.0172 0.0146 0.0198 0.0198 0.0198 0.0367MX2-IV-K 0.0240 0.0588 0.0155 0.0124 0.0218 0.0219 0.0191 0.0191 0.0191 0.0189 0.0157 0.0158 0.0132 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0399POOL1 0.0392 0.1037 0.0227 0.0187 0.0348 0.0332 0.0271 0.0271 0.0271 0.0277 0.0266 0.0266 0.0252 0.0327 0.0327 0.0327 0.0524POOL2 0.0231 0.0519 0.0150 0.0120 0.0215 0.0218 0.0188 0.0189 0.0189 0.0188 0.0169 0.0167 0.0148 0.0204 0.0204 0.0204 0.0358POOL3 0.0360 0.0935 0.0212 0.0174 0.0321 0.0309 0.0255 0.0255 0.0255 0.0259 0.0247 0.0247 0.0232 0.0303 0.0303 0.0303 0.0490

Table 12: Single finger compliance with the PIV interoperability specification. The values are FNMR values at FMR = 0.01 for the interoperable case in which the MINEX II matcher

identified in the column compares left and right index finger POE authentication templates produced by the generator identified in the row, against corresponding BVA reference templates

from the generator supplied with the matching algorithm or POOL-2 if the supplier did not submit one. Yellow shaded cells indicate native combinations - i.e. matcher and template

generators from the same provider. Green shaded cells indicate compliance with a single finger variant of the PIV error rate specification, FNMR

≤ 0.025 at FMR

≤ 0.01.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

25
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011 Nfing 2 Column = MATCH-ON-CARD algorithm MX2-IV-x, Row = INCITS 378 generator Matcher MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-B MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-D MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-F MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-H MX2-IV-I MX2-IV-J MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-L MX2-IV-M MX2-IV-N MX2-IV-O MX2-IV-P MX2-IV-Q Generator MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-K POOL2 POOL2 POOL2 POOL2

A 0.0202 0.0643 0.0050 0.0032 0.0168 0.0173 0.0077 0.0077 0.0076 0.0077 0.0124 0.0125 0.0056 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 0.0249B 0.0125 0.0458 0.0037 0.0028 0.0105 0.0097 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0092 0.0091 0.0050 0.0133 0.0133 0.0133 0.0259C 0.0124 0.0442 0.0046 0.0039 0.0106 0.0094 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0070 0.0077 0.0077 0.0061 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 0.0266D 0.0114 0.0331 0.0029 0.0023 0.0089 0.0090 0.0066 0.0066 0.0066 0.0066 0.0080 0.0082 0.0050 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0211E 0.0083 0.0221 0.0055 0.0044 0.0082 0.0083 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.0103 0.0103 0.0082 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0179F 0.0123 0.0441 0.0045 0.0039 0.0106 0.0095 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069 0.0071 0.0077 0.0078 0.0061 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 0.0266G 0.0120 0.0400 0.0042 0.0034 0.0091 0.0086 0.0062 0.0062 0.0062 0.0063 0.0107 0.0106 0.0067 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0219N 0.0157 0.0374 0.0076 0.0066 0.0136 0.0141 0.0117 0.0116 0.0117 0.0117 0.0150 0.0149 0.0110 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.02591C 0.0054 0.0182 0.0037 0.0028 0.0046 0.0045 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0052 0.0053 0.0039 0.0088 0.0088 0.0088 0.01211D 0.0225 0.0544 0.0096 0.0083 0.0149 0.0125 0.0081 0.0081 0.0080 0.0096 0.0162 0.0162 0.0142 0.0274 0.0274 0.0274 0.03451F 0.0198 0.0480 0.0075 0.0064 0.0186 0.0174 0.0107 0.0107 0.0107 0.0113 0.0154 0.0159 0.0102 0.0233 0.0233 0.0233 0.02981G 0.0198 0.0481 0.0075 0.0064 0.0187 0.0175 0.0108 0.0108 0.0107 0.0113 0.0154 0.0159 0.0102 0.0234 0.0234 0.0234 0.02981J 0.0137 0.0366 0.0051 0.0045 0.0153 0.0146 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0088 0.0079 0.0080 0.0084 0.0211 0.0211 0.0211 0.03141L 0.0092 0.0313 0.0035 0.0027 0.0104 0.0104 0.0056 0.0056 0.0056 0.0057 0.0078 0.0079 0.0047 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.01931M 0.0122 0.2098 0.0038 0.0031 0.0095 0.0090 0.0068 0.0069 0.0068 0.0068 0.0076 0.0075 0.0051 0.0135 0.0135 0.0135 0.02891N 0.0106 0.0316 0.0060 0.0045 0.0097 0.0094 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0064 0.0076 0.0073 0.0071 0.0147 0.0147 0.0148 0.02041T 0.0050 0.0140 0.0034 0.0026 0.0054 0.0052 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0055 0.0054 0.0041 0.0092 0.0093 0.0093 0.01201Y 0.0111 0.2158 0.0033 0.0027 0.0088 0.0086 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.0066 0.0074 0.0075 0.0048 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.02632A 0.0124 0.0442 0.0046 0.0039 0.0106 0.0094 0.0068 0.0069 0.0068 0.0070 0.0077 0.0077 0.0061 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 0.0266MX2D 0.0114 0.0329 0.0029 0.0023 0.0086 0.0090 0.0066 0.0066 0.0066 0.0066 0.0080 0.0082 0.0049 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0209MX2-IV-A 0.0050 0.0141 0.0034 0.0026 0.0053 0.0054 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0053 0.0053 0.0042 0.0090 0.0090 0.0090 0.0119MX2-IV-C 0.0054 0.0189 0.0013 0.0011 0.0050 0.0053 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0042 0.0043 0.0025 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.0118MX2-IV-E 0.0054 0.0190 0.0026 0.0020 0.0041 0.0045 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0044 0.0044 0.0029 0.0074 0.0074 0.0073 0.0130MX2-IV-G 0.0055 0.0186 0.0026 0.0019 0.0045 0.0047 0.0035 0.0035 0.0036 0.0035 0.0050 0.0049 0.0030 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0138MX2-IV-K 0.0061 0.0228 0.0025 0.0019 0.0050 0.0054 0.0038 0.0039 0.0038 0.0038 0.0042 0.0042 0.0026 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0161POOL1 0.0134 0.0567 0.0049 0.0041 0.0115 0.0111 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0074 0.0100 0.0100 0.0069 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0245POOL2 0.0055 0.0192 0.0025 0.0019 0.0049 0.0053 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0047 0.0046 0.0030 0.0076 0.0076 0.0076 0.0134POOL3 0.0119 0.0494 0.0045 0.0036 0.0101 0.0099 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.0067 0.0089 0.0090 0.0061 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0222

Table 13: Compliance beyond the PIV interoperability specification. Sum-fused two-finger FNMR values at FMR = 0.001 for the interoperable case in which the MINEX II matcher identified

in the column compares left and right index finger POE authentication templates produced by the generator identified in the row, against corresponding BVA reference templates from thegenerator supplied with the matching algorithm or POOL-2 if the supplier did not submit one. Yellow shaded cells indicate native combinations - i.e. matcher and template generators fromthe same provider. Green shaded cells indicate compliance with the PIV false non-match rate specification, FNMR

≤ 0.01.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

26
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011 Nfing 2 Column = MATCH-ON-CARD algorithm MX2-IV-x, Row = INCITS 378 generator Matcher MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-B MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-D MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-F MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-H MX2-IV-I MX2-IV-J MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-L MX2-IV-M MX2-IV-N MX2-IV-O MX2-IV-P MX2-IV-Q Generator MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-A MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-C MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-E MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-G MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-K MX2-IV-K POOL2 POOL2 POOL2 POOL2

A 0.0332 0.0974 0.0081 0.0060 0.0323 0.0347 0.0166 0.0166 0.0167 0.0167 0.0240 0.0243 0.0091 0.0315 0.0314 0.0315 0.0417B 0.0195 0.0664 0.0058 0.0050 0.0193 0.0191 0.0102 0.0103 0.0102 0.0102 0.0182 0.0177 0.0082 0.0214 0.0214 0.0214 0.0410C 0.0189 0.0647 0.0075 0.0062 0.0200 0.0188 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0118 0.0144 0.0142 0.0092 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0422D 0.0177 0.0478 0.0046 0.0039 0.0174 0.0186 0.0119 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0154 0.0150 0.0080 0.0184 0.0184 0.0184 0.0340E 0.0126 0.0335 0.0087 0.0074 0.0163 0.0171 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0181 0.0183 0.0128 0.0253 0.0253 0.0252 0.0294F 0.0189 0.0651 0.0073 0.0063 0.0200 0.0190 0.0111 0.0112 0.0111 0.0115 0.0143 0.0141 0.0093 0.0260 0.0260 0.0260 0.0422G 0.0194 0.0604 0.0073 0.0062 0.0177 0.0179 0.0110 0.0110 0.0111 0.0112 0.0207 0.0208 0.0117 0.0238 0.0238 0.0238 0.0365N 0.0241 0.0526 0.0120 0.0106 0.0267 0.0280 0.0196 0.0197 0.0197 0.0196 0.0267 0.0267 0.0174 0.0320 0.0320 0.0320 0.04151C 0.0084 0.0289 0.0062 0.0047 0.0093 0.0098 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0095 0.0093 0.0064 0.0147 0.0147 0.0147 0.02081D 0.0327 0.0757 0.0144 0.0128 0.0265 0.0245 0.0138 0.0137 0.0138 0.0157 0.0278 0.0281 0.0217 0.0404 0.0404 0.0404 0.05241F 0.0308 0.0696 0.0121 0.0106 0.0369 0.0362 0.0196 0.0195 0.0196 0.0203 0.0285 0.0291 0.0167 0.0361 0.0361 0.0361 0.04681G 0.0309 0.0697 0.0121 0.0106 0.0369 0.0363 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0203 0.0286 0.0292 0.0167 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.04681J 0.0203 0.0514 0.0076 0.0068 0.0296 0.0315 0.0124 0.0126 0.0124 0.0148 0.0147 0.0149 0.0124 0.0333 0.0333 0.0333 0.04871L 0.0156 0.0473 0.0058 0.0049 0.0207 0.0228 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0103 0.0156 0.0154 0.0084 0.0200 0.0200 0.0199 0.03231M 0.0197 0.3079 0.0062 0.0049 0.0179 0.0178 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0126 0.0144 0.0143 0.0090 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.04781N 0.0163 0.0462 0.0095 0.0077 0.0178 0.0197 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0107 0.0135 0.0136 0.0108 0.0233 0.0233 0.0233 0.03241T 0.0077 0.0209 0.0054 0.0043 0.0100 0.0099 0.0078 0.0078 0.0079 0.0078 0.0101 0.0101 0.0070 0.0156 0.0156 0.0156 0.02031Y 0.0181 0.3136 0.0054 0.0046 0.0177 0.0174 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0130 0.0131 0.0079 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.04542A 0.0189 0.0647 0.0075 0.0062 0.0200 0.0187 0.0115 0.0116 0.0115 0.0118 0.0145 0.0142 0.0092 0.0259 0.0259 0.0259 0.0422MX2D 0.0177 0.0477 0.0046 0.0039 0.0170 0.0185 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0154 0.0151 0.0080 0.0181 0.0181 0.0181 0.0337MX2-IV-A 0.0076 0.0208 0.0052 0.0041 0.0095 0.0099 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0078 0.0100 0.0101 0.0069 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0198MX2-IV-C 0.0086 0.0286 0.0021 0.0018 0.0101 0.0116 0.0068 0.0069 0.0068 0.0068 0.0084 0.0082 0.0039 0.0115 0.0114 0.0115 0.0197MX2-IV-E 0.0088 0.0292 0.0041 0.0034 0.0083 0.0108 0.0062 0.0062 0.0062 0.0061 0.0085 0.0080 0.0048 0.0124 0.0124 0.0124 0.0216MX2-IV-G 0.0091 0.0284 0.0040 0.0034 0.0090 0.0096 0.0056 0.0056 0.0056 0.0056 0.0090 0.0089 0.0048 0.0123 0.0122 0.0122 0.0227MX2-IV-K 0.0094 0.0338 0.0039 0.0032 0.0104 0.0118 0.0068 0.0067 0.0068 0.0067 0.0081 0.0082 0.0041 0.0132 0.0132 0.0132 0.0265POOL1 0.0209 0.0832 0.0080 0.0067 0.0220 0.0228 0.0126 0.0127 0.0126 0.0130 0.0186 0.0186 0.0111 0.0258 0.0258 0.0258 0.0396POOL2 0.0089 0.0294 0.0039 0.0032 0.0098 0.0113 0.0067 0.0066 0.0066 0.0066 0.0088 0.0087 0.0049 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0222POOL3 0.0186 0.0728 0.0072 0.0060 0.0195 0.0205 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0118 0.0167 0.0167 0.0099 0.0233 0.0233 0.0233 0.0361

Table 14: Compliance beyond the PIV interoperability specification. Sum-fused two-finger FNMR values at FMR = 0.0001 for the interoperable case in which the MINEX II matcher identified

in the column compares left and right index finger POE authentication templates produced by the generator identified in the row, against corresponding BVA reference templates from thegenerator supplied with the matching algorithm or POOL-2 if the supplier did not submit one. Yellow shaded cells indicate native combinations - i.e. matcher and template generators fromthe same provider. Green shaded cells indicate compliance with the PIV false non-match rate specification, FNMR

≤ 0.01.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

27
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Biometrics’ 1D minutia detector, the FNMR exceeds 0.01. This minutia detector is a legacy algorithm whose performance is inferior to that of the vendor’s more recent implementations. The 1D template generator is unlikely to

be used in future operations and should be delisted. The template generator combination {1D,MX2T} prevented

the Phase III implementation, MX2T (from Cogent Systems), from meeting PIV. If 1D was delisted from Table 6

MX2T would be the PIV criteria for MATCH-OFF-CARD implementations. Note that dedicated MATCH-ON-CARD

specifications are being developed for PIV in the forthcoming NIST Special Publication 800-76-2 (expected mid

2011).

. Five other implementations, from three teams, come reasonably close to attaining PIV compliance. They are MX2-

IV-{A,N,O,P,Q}. The false non-match rates exceed the required 0.01 limit for some “difficult” generators. For

example, they all fail with templates from generator, 1D, which produces minutia templates that always yield

higher than average error rates here and in the ONGOING MINEX program15 This less-than-ideal behavior is partly

a consequence of differing relative sizes of the templates - some minutia generators are more verbose than others

- and this difference is a known cause of interoperability problems [3]. In any case, this specific issue and the

variations associated with cross-vendor interoperability are both worthy of further investigation and appropriate

standardization efforts.

. Tables 13 and 14 shows that the MX2-IV-C and D implementations would meet the same PIV FNMR ≤ 0.01 requirement if the FMR criterion was a factor of ten lower, i.e. FMR ≤ 0.001. This does not extend to FMR = 0.0001, however.

This repeats the Phase III result for MX2D which appears to be the same Morpho algorithm as MX2-IV-C.

. In Phase III, the MX2D algorithm produced an order of magnitude fewer false matches than any other algorithm

for a given FNMR . That result is no longer true because the algorithms from Precise Biometrics, Micro-PackS,

Innovatrics and to a lesser extent ID3 have improved. However, for the improved Morpho algorithm, column

MX2-IV-D of Table 14 (FMR= 10−4) is close to the Precise Biometrics algorithm, column MX2-IV-G, of Table 13

(FMR= 10−3).

. As documented previously [8, 7, 9] interoperable error rates are higher when three companies are involved (one for

the reference template, another for the verification template, and a third for the matcher provider). Cross-supplier

error rates are higher than native because of systematic inconsistencies between implementations on which minutiae are true, false, and missed, and on local placement of minutiae.

6.1 The meaning of PIV compliance

For the many reasons noted on page 3, the error rates measured in large scale offline tests using archival data are not

specifically representative of any particular application16.

However single-image matching evaluations, conducted on massive archival data sets, are extremely valuable because

tests are fair and repeatble assessments of accuracy and speed. In particular, the offline nature of the ONGOING MINEX

and MINEX II tests makes them suitable for assessing and certifying the core accuracy and interoperability of minutia

matching algorithms. That is, the tests are suitable for exposing implementations that are improperly implementing the

underyling INCITS 378 and ISO/IEC 19794-2 COMPACT CARD minutiae standards. Thus, while the MINEX trials are necessary for qualification of implementations, and they effectively support operations, they are not sufficient for prediction

of fielded performance.

7 THRESHOLD CALIBRATION

Some biometric algorithm providers publish threshold values needed to attain specific false match rates in one-to-one

verification comparisons.

15The full table of error rates is linked from http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex under “Test Results”.

16Except possibly the US-VISIT application, because MINEX II used its images.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

28
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

The following tables show such FMR calibrations for the Phase IV MATCH-ON-CARD algorithms. These calibrations

are based on the impostor comparisons between POE and BVA optical live-scan images. The number of image-pair

comparisons is 2499880 including equal numbers of left and right fingers. This is the number used for computation of

native mode thresholds. For pooled mode operation, the reference templates are from the preferred provider, and the

authentication templates are those in Pool 3. The use of a pool repeats comparisons from the same parent images so

there is no added statistical significance for the FMR measurement.

Additionally, the results were computed by adding zero-mean uniform random noise (“jitter”) to the integer impostor

scores to break ties. The width of the uniform noise distribution was ±0.2. This technique was described in earlier MINEX

II reports. The use of noise causes calibrations for identical algorithms to differ slightly, e.g. between MX2-IV-{O,P}.

The tables have the following numbered columns.

1. FMRN (τN ) The false match measured for native templates at the native theshold. Native templates are those from

the provider-preferred template generator. This value is set as the independent variable in the Tables on the assumption that an algorithm developer would set the native threshold τN by calibrating it on vendor-proprietary

databases.

2. FMRP (τN ) The false match measured for pooled templates at the native theshold. The comparisons is of providerpreferred reference templates with Pool 3 templates (see section 3.2).

3. τN is the native mode threshold that gives column 1 FMR.

4. τP is the threshold that gives the FMR of column 1 over all pooled comparisons. This value serves as the default recommendation for MATCH-ON-CARD implementations sold into a federated marketplace where multiple template

generators are in use.

5. FNMRN (τN ) is the FNMR at the native threshold computed over native comparisons.

6. FNMRP (τN ) is the FNMR at the native threshold computed over pooled comparisons.

7. FNMRP (τP ) is the FNMR at the pooled threshold computed over pooled comparisons.

8. FMRN (τN ) is the FMR when the native single-finger threshold is used but either impostor finger can be used. This

is computed over native comparisons.

9. FMRP (τN ) is the FMR when the native single-finger threshold is used but either impostor finger can be used for

authentication. This is computed over pooled comparisons.

10. FNMRP (τN ) is the FNMR when the native single-finger threshold is used but either genuine finger can be used for

authentication. This is computed over pooled comparisons.

11. FNMRP (τP ) is the FNMR when the pooled single-finger threshold is used but either genuine finger can be used for

authentication. This is computed over pooled comparisons.

Color coding.

. The single finger FMR cells are coded to show deviations in FMR from that expected by setting the threshold based

on native-only comparisons. Thus, for single fingers, if FMR is reduced by more than 10% it is shaded green. If FMR

increases by more than 10%, 20% or 50% the cell is shaded in increasingly deeper red colors.

. For OR-fused two-finger authentication, FMR cells are shaded green when is less than 1.8 times the single finger

target FMR given in column 1.

. FNMR cells are never shaded.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

29
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Matcher MX2-IV-A Neurotechnology

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00001 804 757 0.055 0.104 0.094 0.00006 0.00003 0.030 0.026

0.00005 0.00002 772 726 0.052 0.097 0.088 0.00010 0.00005 0.027 0.023

0.00010 0.00005 730 684 0.047 0.088 0.079 0.00020 0.00009 0.023 0.019

0.00030 0.00015 660 616 0.040 0.075 0.067 0.00060 0.00030 0.018 0.015

0.00050 0.00024 629 585 0.037 0.069 0.062 0.00100 0.00049 0.016 0.013

0.00100 0.00052 583 544 0.033 0.061 0.055 0.00202 0.00104 0.013 0.011

0.00300 0.00168 513 479 0.027 0.050 0.045 0.00599 0.00335 0.010 0.008

0.00500 0.00293 480 450 0.025 0.045 0.041 0.01005 0.00588 0.008 0.007

0.01000 0.00617 438 410 0.022 0.040 0.036 0.01969 0.01217 0.007 0.006

0.03000 0.02017 371 349 0.017 0.031 0.028 0.05894 0.03983 0.005 0.004

Matcher MX2-IV-B Neurotechnology

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00001 726 671 0.105 0.247 0.221 0.00006 0.00002 0.118 0.099

0.00005 0.00002 694 642 0.098 0.232 0.209 0.00010 0.00004 0.107 0.091

0.00010 0.00004 650 602 0.089 0.212 0.191 0.00020 0.00009 0.093 0.079

0.00030 0.00014 582 542 0.075 0.182 0.165 0.00060 0.00028 0.073 0.062

0.00050 0.00025 553 515 0.070 0.170 0.154 0.00099 0.00049 0.065 0.056

0.00100 0.00051 514 478 0.063 0.153 0.139 0.00201 0.00102 0.055 0.047

0.00300 0.00165 453 422 0.052 0.128 0.116 0.00593 0.00326 0.041 0.035

0.00500 0.00286 424 396 0.048 0.117 0.106 0.01000 0.00573 0.036 0.030

0.01000 0.00602 387 361 0.042 0.103 0.094 0.01972 0.01190 0.029 0.024

0.03000 0.02000 326 306 0.033 0.081 0.074 0.05914 0.03968 0.019 0.016

Matcher MX2-IV-C Morpho

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00002 8012 7814 0.029 0.065 0.061 0.00006 0.00004 0.012 0.011

0.00005 0.00004 7709 7530 0.027 0.059 0.056 0.00010 0.00007 0.010 0.009

0.00010 0.00008 7293 7163 0.024 0.052 0.050 0.00020 0.00015 0.008 0.008

0.00030 0.00024 6686 6574 0.020 0.044 0.042 0.00060 0.00049 0.006 0.006

0.00050 0.00042 6386 6296 0.018 0.040 0.038 0.00100 0.00085 0.005 0.005

0.00100 0.00087 5988 5913 0.016 0.035 0.034 0.00200 0.00174 0.004 0.004

0.00300 0.00256 5381 5288 0.013 0.028 0.027 0.00599 0.00510 0.003 0.003

0.00500 0.00436 5073 4992 0.012 0.025 0.025 0.00996 0.00868 0.003 0.003

0.01000 0.00885 4652 4579 0.010 0.022 0.021 0.01988 0.01760 0.002 0.002

0.03000 0.02745 3948 3891 0.008 0.017 0.016 0.05883 0.05393 0.001 0.001

Matcher MX2-IV-D Morpho

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00002 8116 7989 0.027 0.060 0.057 0.00006 0.00005 0.010 0.010

0.00005 0.00004 7821 7733 0.024 0.053 0.050 0.00010 0.00008 0.009 0.008

0.00010 0.00008 7489 7373 0.020 0.045 0.043 0.00020 0.00016 0.007 0.006

0.00030 0.00024 6910 6798 0.017 0.037 0.036 0.00060 0.00048 0.005 0.005

0.00050 0.00041 6626 6524 0.015 0.034 0.033 0.00100 0.00083 0.004 0.004

0.00100 0.00084 6240 6146 0.013 0.029 0.029 0.00200 0.00168 0.004 0.003

0.00300 0.00254 5623 5530 0.011 0.024 0.023 0.00600 0.00508 0.003 0.002

0.00500 0.00426 5330 5237 0.010 0.021 0.020 0.00996 0.00849 0.002 0.002

0.01000 0.00873 4911 4830 0.008 0.018 0.017 0.01986 0.01734 0.002 0.002

0.03000 0.02708 4221 4156 0.006 0.014 0.013 0.05886 0.05321 0.001 0.001

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

30
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Matcher MX2-IV-E ID3

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00003 6499 6441 0.073 0.124 0.122 0.00006 0.00006 0.033 0.032

0.00005 0.00004 6256 6092 0.068 0.116 0.111 0.00010 0.00008 0.030 0.028

0.00010 0.00007 5875 5619 0.061 0.105 0.098 0.00020 0.00014 0.025 0.023

0.00030 0.00022 5110 4913 0.048 0.084 0.079 0.00060 0.00044 0.018 0.016

0.00050 0.00037 4784 4590 0.043 0.076 0.071 0.00099 0.00073 0.015 0.013

0.00100 0.00073 4355 4164 0.036 0.065 0.060 0.00198 0.00145 0.012 0.010

0.00300 0.00226 3679 3511 0.027 0.049 0.046 0.00590 0.00447 0.007 0.007

0.00500 0.00385 3366 3217 0.024 0.043 0.040 0.00990 0.00766 0.006 0.005

0.01000 0.00794 2951 2819 0.019 0.035 0.032 0.01948 0.01553 0.004 0.004

0.03000 0.02443 2313 2198 0.013 0.024 0.022 0.05760 0.04733 0.002 0.002

Matcher MX2-IV-F ID3

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00001 7436 6838 0.088 0.147 0.128 0.00006 0.00003 0.044 0.035

0.00005 0.00002 7006 6434 0.079 0.134 0.116 0.00010 0.00005 0.037 0.030

0.00010 0.00005 6421 5916 0.068 0.116 0.102 0.00020 0.00010 0.030 0.024

0.00030 0.00016 5589 5134 0.054 0.092 0.080 0.00060 0.00031 0.020 0.016

0.00050 0.00028 5186 4782 0.047 0.082 0.071 0.00100 0.00056 0.016 0.013

0.00100 0.00058 4680 4320 0.039 0.069 0.060 0.00196 0.00114 0.013 0.010

0.00300 0.00189 3913 3625 0.029 0.051 0.045 0.00591 0.00372 0.008 0.006

0.00500 0.00327 3569 3310 0.024 0.044 0.039 0.00984 0.00648 0.006 0.005

0.01000 0.00682 3119 2887 0.020 0.035 0.031 0.01951 0.01351 0.004 0.004

0.03000 0.02222 2417 2243 0.013 0.023 0.021 0.05747 0.04312 0.002 0.002

8 EVOLUTION OF MOC PERFORMANCE

Figure 5 plots a single accuracy estimate against MATCH-ON-CARD VERIFY time for all algorithms submitted to Phases

II, III and IV of MINEX II. These are applied to a specific template generator pair (MX2D-B) because these were used

in all phases since MINEX II started in 2007. The Figure attributes these performance estimates to the provider of the

fingerprint minutia matching algroithm rather than the card provider. Some of the algorithms have been ported to cards

from several providers. While it is assumed that the card is not directly influential on core matching accuracy, it is

recognized that a fast card can support slow-but-accurate algorithms, and, for example, allow the algorithm to handle a

great range of finger rotation angles.

. Morpho: The algorithm submitted in Phases II and III, denoted MX2D, now runs more quickly than previously. It

is denoted as MX2-IV-C in this report. This speed improvement is probably attributable to changes in the card. A

new algorithm, MX2-IV-D offers better accuracy but runs only at speeds comparable with the old algorithm on the

old cards, about 0.5 seconds per comparison.

. ID3: The Phase IV algorithms are faster than the Phase III algorithms, but with little improvement in accuracy.

These algorithms are substantially more accurate than the five Phase II variants.

. Precise Biometrics: The Phase IV algorithms demonstrate a large variation in speed with little variation in accuracy. This is attributable to variations in the cards from the three card providers teaming with Precise Biometrics.

Accuracy has improved markedly over that measured, but not published, in Phase I.

. Innovatrics: The Phase III and IV algorithms show little variation in speed and accuracy.

. Neurotechnology: The Phase IV algorithms show very large variation in accuracy. Accuracy and speed has improved markedly over that measured, but not published, in Phase I.

. Micro-PackS: The Phase IV algorithms show very large improvement in accuracy compared to Phase III, with little

change in speed.

. Dermalog: The Phase IV algorithms show a small variation in speed and little variation in accuracy.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

31
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Matcher MX2-IV-G Precise Biometrics

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00002 313 300 0.054 0.084 0.081 0.00006 0.00005 0.019 0.018

0.00005 0.00004 284 274 0.050 0.078 0.075 0.00010 0.00008 0.017 0.016

0.00010 0.00008 251 241 0.045 0.070 0.067 0.00020 0.00016 0.014 0.013

0.00030 0.00026 200 194 0.036 0.055 0.054 0.00059 0.00052 0.010 0.009

0.00050 0.00045 178 174 0.033 0.050 0.049 0.00099 0.00090 0.008 0.008

0.00100 0.00092 150 147 0.028 0.043 0.043 0.00201 0.00185 0.007 0.006

0.00300 0.00278 112 109 0.023 0.034 0.034 0.00594 0.00551 0.005 0.005

0.00500 0.00471 95 94 0.020 0.031 0.030 0.01001 0.00946 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.00964 75 74 0.017 0.026 0.025 0.01956 0.01886 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.02913 47 47 0.013 0.019 0.019 0.05924 0.05752 0.002 0.002

Matcher MX2-IV-H Precise Biometrics

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00002 314 300 0.054 0.085 0.081 0.00006 0.00005 0.019 0.018

0.00005 0.00004 284 274 0.050 0.078 0.075 0.00010 0.00008 0.017 0.016

0.00010 0.00008 251 241 0.045 0.070 0.067 0.00020 0.00016 0.014 0.013

0.00030 0.00026 199 194 0.036 0.055 0.054 0.00061 0.00053 0.010 0.009

0.00050 0.00045 178 174 0.033 0.050 0.049 0.00099 0.00090 0.008 0.008

0.00100 0.00092 150 147 0.028 0.043 0.043 0.00201 0.00185 0.007 0.006

0.00300 0.00278 112 109 0.023 0.034 0.034 0.00594 0.00551 0.005 0.005

0.00500 0.00472 95 94 0.020 0.031 0.030 0.00999 0.00946 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.00963 75 74 0.017 0.026 0.025 0.01957 0.01886 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.02912 47 47 0.013 0.019 0.019 0.05925 0.05752 0.002 0.002

Matcher MX2-IV-I Precise Biometrics

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00002 313 300 0.054 0.084 0.081 0.00006 0.00005 0.019 0.018

0.00005 0.00004 284 274 0.050 0.078 0.075 0.00010 0.00008 0.017 0.016

0.00010 0.00008 251 241 0.045 0.070 0.067 0.00020 0.00016 0.014 0.013

0.00030 0.00026 200 194 0.036 0.055 0.054 0.00059 0.00052 0.010 0.009

0.00050 0.00045 178 174 0.033 0.050 0.049 0.00099 0.00090 0.008 0.008

0.00100 0.00092 150 147 0.028 0.043 0.043 0.00201 0.00185 0.007 0.006

0.00300 0.00278 112 109 0.023 0.034 0.034 0.00594 0.00551 0.005 0.005

0.00500 0.00471 95 94 0.020 0.031 0.030 0.01001 0.00946 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.00963 75 74 0.017 0.026 0.025 0.01956 0.01886 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.02912 47 47 0.013 0.019 0.019 0.05924 0.05752 0.002 0.002

Matcher MX2-IV-J Precise Biometrics

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00002 313 300 0.054 0.085 0.082 0.00006 0.00005 0.020 0.019

0.00005 0.00004 284 274 0.050 0.078 0.076 0.00010 0.00008 0.017 0.016

0.00010 0.00008 251 241 0.045 0.070 0.067 0.00020 0.00016 0.014 0.013

0.00030 0.00026 200 194 0.036 0.056 0.054 0.00059 0.00052 0.010 0.009

0.00050 0.00045 178 174 0.033 0.050 0.049 0.00099 0.00089 0.008 0.008

0.00100 0.00092 150 147 0.028 0.044 0.043 0.00201 0.00185 0.007 0.007

0.00300 0.00278 112 109 0.023 0.035 0.034 0.00594 0.00551 0.005 0.005

0.00500 0.00471 95 94 0.020 0.031 0.031 0.01001 0.00946 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.00964 75 74 0.017 0.026 0.026 0.01956 0.01884 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.02909 47 47 0.013 0.019 0.019 0.05924 0.05747 0.002 0.002

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

32
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Matcher MX2-IV-K Innovatrics

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00003 5293 5304 0.062 0.091 0.092 0.00006 0.00006 0.022 0.022

0.00005 0.00005 5157 5170 0.056 0.083 0.084 0.00010 0.00010 0.019 0.019

0.00010 0.00011 4950 4975 0.048 0.072 0.074 0.00020 0.00022 0.015 0.016

0.00030 0.00031 4666 4677 0.039 0.059 0.060 0.00060 0.00062 0.011 0.011

0.00050 0.00053 4514 4532 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.00100 0.00106 0.009 0.009

0.00100 0.00112 4291 4325 0.029 0.044 0.046 0.00198 0.00222 0.007 0.007

0.00300 0.00328 3954 3983 0.022 0.034 0.035 0.00593 0.00649 0.005 0.005

0.00500 0.00543 3788 3816 0.019 0.029 0.030 0.00985 0.01071 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.01076 3554 3580 0.016 0.024 0.025 0.01955 0.02101 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.03187 3155 3178 0.011 0.017 0.017 0.05724 0.06076 0.002 0.002

Matcher MX2-IV-L Innovatrics

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00003 21121 21209 0.061 0.090 0.092 0.00006 0.00007 0.022 0.022

0.00005 0.00006 20543 20656 0.055 0.082 0.084 0.00010 0.00011 0.019 0.019

0.00010 0.00011 19830 19892 0.049 0.073 0.074 0.00020 0.00021 0.015 0.016

0.00030 0.00032 18611 18689 0.039 0.059 0.059 0.00060 0.00064 0.011 0.011

0.00050 0.00053 18032 18113 0.035 0.053 0.053 0.00100 0.00107 0.009 0.009

0.00100 0.00111 17162 17285 0.029 0.044 0.046 0.00199 0.00220 0.007 0.007

0.00300 0.00328 15800 15913 0.022 0.034 0.035 0.00594 0.00648 0.005 0.005

0.00500 0.00543 15135 15246 0.019 0.029 0.030 0.00984 0.01071 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.01073 14203 14301 0.016 0.024 0.025 0.01955 0.02097 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.03190 12600 12695 0.011 0.017 0.017 0.05735 0.06090 0.002 0.002

Matcher MX2-IV-M Micro-PackS

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00002 9973 9716 0.040 0.067 0.065 0.00006 0.00005 0.015 0.015

0.00005 0.00005 9158 9055 0.036 0.061 0.060 0.00010 0.00009 0.013 0.013

0.00010 0.00010 8257 8220 0.032 0.054 0.054 0.00020 0.00019 0.011 0.011

0.00030 0.00030 6945 6937 0.026 0.045 0.045 0.00060 0.00060 0.008 0.008

0.00050 0.00049 6380 6364 0.024 0.041 0.041 0.00100 0.00098 0.007 0.007

0.00100 0.00097 5637 5604 0.021 0.036 0.036 0.00200 0.00194 0.006 0.006

0.00300 0.00288 4490 4449 0.017 0.030 0.029 0.00598 0.00574 0.005 0.004

0.00500 0.00483 3973 3939 0.015 0.027 0.027 0.00994 0.00961 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.00963 3319 3284 0.013 0.023 0.023 0.01979 0.01906 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.02871 2396 2363 0.010 0.018 0.018 0.05842 0.05599 0.002 0.002

Matcher MX2-IV-N Dermalog

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00003 16412 16507 0.053 0.098 0.100 0.00006 0.00007 0.023 0.023

0.00005 0.00005 16013 16002 0.048 0.089 0.089 0.00010 0.00010 0.020 0.020

0.00010 0.00009 15436 15376 0.041 0.078 0.077 0.00020 0.00019 0.016 0.015

0.00030 0.00025 14567 14399 0.032 0.064 0.061 0.00060 0.00050 0.011 0.011

0.00050 0.00041 14135 13949 0.028 0.057 0.054 0.00100 0.00081 0.010 0.009

0.00100 0.00081 13504 13313 0.024 0.049 0.046 0.00200 0.00162 0.008 0.007

0.00300 0.00245 12475 12280 0.018 0.037 0.035 0.00596 0.00489 0.005 0.005

0.00500 0.00415 11957 11768 0.015 0.032 0.031 0.00993 0.00825 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.00847 11221 11043 0.012 0.027 0.026 0.01970 0.01672 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.02606 9949 9778 0.009 0.020 0.019 0.05824 0.05075 0.002 0.002

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

33
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Matcher MX2-IV-O Dermalog

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00003 32821 33014 0.053 0.098 0.100 0.00006 0.00007 0.023 0.023

0.00005 0.00005 32027 32005 0.048 0.089 0.089 0.00010 0.00010 0.020 0.020

0.00010 0.00009 30875 30751 0.041 0.078 0.077 0.00020 0.00019 0.016 0.015

0.00030 0.00025 29136 28800 0.032 0.064 0.061 0.00060 0.00050 0.011 0.011

0.00050 0.00041 28269 27898 0.028 0.057 0.054 0.00100 0.00081 0.010 0.009

0.00100 0.00081 27007 26626 0.024 0.049 0.046 0.00200 0.00163 0.008 0.007

0.00300 0.00246 24949 24560 0.018 0.037 0.035 0.00597 0.00489 0.005 0.005

0.00500 0.00415 23915 23537 0.015 0.032 0.031 0.00993 0.00825 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.00847 22441 22086 0.012 0.027 0.026 0.01970 0.01672 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.02606 19899 19556 0.009 0.020 0.019 0.05824 0.05075 0.002 0.002

Matcher MX2-IV-P Dermalog

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00003 32822 33012 0.053 0.098 0.100 0.00006 0.00007 0.023 0.023

0.00005 0.00005 32028 32005 0.048 0.089 0.089 0.00010 0.00010 0.020 0.020

0.00010 0.00009 30875 30751 0.041 0.078 0.077 0.00020 0.00019 0.016 0.015

0.00030 0.00025 29136 28800 0.032 0.064 0.061 0.00060 0.00050 0.011 0.011

0.00050 0.00041 28268 27898 0.028 0.057 0.054 0.00100 0.00081 0.010 0.009

0.00100 0.00081 27008 26625 0.024 0.049 0.046 0.00200 0.00162 0.008 0.007

0.00300 0.00246 24949 24561 0.018 0.037 0.035 0.00597 0.00489 0.005 0.005

0.00500 0.00415 23915 23537 0.015 0.032 0.031 0.00993 0.00825 0.004 0.004

0.01000 0.00847 22440 22086 0.012 0.027 0.026 0.01970 0.01672 0.003 0.003

0.03000 0.02606 19899 19556 0.009 0.020 0.019 0.05824 0.05075 0.002 0.002

Matcher MX2-IV-Q Inst Infocomm Rsrch

Single Finger OR-fused Two Finger

FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) τN τP FNMRN (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP ) FMRN (τN ) FMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τN ) FNMRP (τP )

0.00003 0.00003 410 408 0.076 0.134 0.133 0.00006 0.00006 0.037 0.037

0.00005 0.00004 396 393 0.070 0.124 0.122 0.00010 0.00009 0.033 0.032

0.00010 0.00009 376 372 0.061 0.110 0.108 0.00020 0.00018 0.027 0.026

0.00030 0.00027 343 340 0.049 0.089 0.088 0.00060 0.00054 0.020 0.019

0.00050 0.00046 327 325 0.044 0.081 0.080 0.00101 0.00093 0.017 0.016

0.00100 0.00093 306 304 0.038 0.070 0.069 0.00201 0.00189 0.013 0.013

0.00300 0.00288 273 271 0.030 0.055 0.055 0.00590 0.00566 0.009 0.009

0.00500 0.00483 256 255 0.026 0.049 0.049 0.01003 0.00968 0.007 0.007

0.01000 0.00971 234 233 0.022 0.042 0.042 0.01949 0.01894 0.006 0.006

0.03000 0.02984 193 193 0.017 0.032 0.032 0.05767 0.05745 0.004 0.004

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

34
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

Verify Time

FNMR

0.03

0.1

0.1 0.3 1 3

●

Cogent

●●●

Dermalog

●

GD

0.03

0.1

● ● ●●●

●● ●●

ID3

0.03

0.1

●

IIR

●●●●

Innovatrics

●●

●

Micro−PackS

0.03

0.1

●

●

● ●

Morpho

0.03

0.1

●

●

Neurotechnology

0.1 0.3 1 3

● ● ●

Precise

2007 2008 2009

Matcher Provider Year FNMR Duration

MX2D Morpho 2007 0.03 0.52

MX2E Morpho 2007 0.07 0.51

MX2G ID3 2007 0.14 0.16

MX2H ID3 2007 0.13 0.30

MX2I ID3 2007 0.09 0.62

MX2J ID3 2007 0.10 0.65

MX2K ID3 2007 0.10 0.68

MX2M GD 2007 0.17 6.40

MX2N Innovatrics 2008 0.06 1.06

MX2O Innovatrics 2008 0.04 1.25

MX2P ID3 2008 0.06 0.27

MX2Q ID3 2008 0.05 0.29

MX2R Micro-PackS 2008 0.20 0.88

MX2S Micro-PackS 2008 0.22 0.66

MX2T Cogent 2008 0.04 0.76

MX2-IV-A Neurotechnology 2009 0.04 0.22

MX2-IV-B Neurotechnology 2009 0.10 0.15

MX2-IV-C Morpho 2009 0.03 0.15

MX2-IV-D Morpho 2009 0.03 0.52

MX2-IV-E ID3 2009 0.06 0.08

MX2-IV-F ID3 2009 0.05 0.08

MX2-IV-G Precise 2009 0.03 0.08

MX2-IV-H Precise 2009 0.03 1.27

MX2-IV-I Precise 2009 0.03 0.31

MX2-IV-J Precise 2009 0.03 0.32

MX2-IV-K Innovatrics 2009 0.05 1.17

MX2-IV-L Innovatrics 2009 0.05 1.34

MX2-IV-M Micro-PackS 2009 0.04 0.54

MX2-IV-N Dermalog 2009 0.05 0.38

MX2-IV-O Dermalog 2009 0.05 0.61

MX2-IV-P Dermalog 2009 0.05 0.72

MX2-IV-Q IIR 2009 0.08 1.01

Figure 5: Evolution of MATCH-ON-CARD speed and accuracy over the three MINEX II phases. The circles show a single (FNMR ,Duration) datapoint

for each MINEX II algorithms. That is FNMR at FMR = 0.001 for single finger genuine comparisons is plotted against median duration of the comparison.

The duration is defined as the measured ISO/IEC 7816 VERIFY time. Both scales are logarithmic. The reference templates and authentication templates

were produced by B (Table 6) and MX2D (Table 1) respectively. This pair is adopted for this figure because it was used in all MINEX II phases. The raw

data is shown at right.

. Institute for Infocomm Research: The Phase IV algorithm is the first submitted to MINEX II .

. Cogent: No algorithms were tested in Phase IV. The Phase III algorithm remains competitive on accuracy

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

35
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

References

[1] Working Group 1. Standing Document 2 Harmonized Biometric Vocabulary. Technical report, ISO/IEC JTC1 SC37

N1248, November 2005.

[2] Working Group 5. ISO/IEC 19795-1 Biometric Performance Testing and Reporting: Principles and Framework. JTC1 ::

SC37, international standard edition, August 2005. http://isotc.iso.org/isotcportal.

[3] A. Bazin and T. Mansfield. An investigation of minutiae interoperability. In Proc. Fifth IEEE Workhop on Automated

Identification Advanced Technologies, June 2007. AUTO-ID 2007, Alghero Italy.

[4] W.-Y. Choi, K. Lee, S.B. Pan, and Y. Chung. Realizable classifiers: Improving performance on variable cost problems.

In M. H. Hamza, editor, BMVC. ACTA Press, 2004.

[5] D. Cooper, H. Dang, P. Lee, W. MacGregor, and K. Mehta. Secure Biometric Match-on-Card Feasibility Report.

Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology, November 2007. Published as NIST Interagency

Report 7452.

[6] J. Campbell et al. ILO Seafarers’ Identity Documents Biometric Testing Campaign Report. International Labour Organization, Geneva, 2005. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/maritime/sid-test-report2.pdf.

[7] T. Mansfield et al. Research report on minutiae interoperability tests. Technical report, Minutiae Template Interoperability Testing, 2007. http://www.mtitproject.com/DeliverableD62.pdf.

[8] P. Grother, M. McCabe, C. Watson, M. Indovina, W. Salamon, P. Flanagan, E. Tabassi, E. Newton, and C. Wilson.

Performance and Interoperability of the INCITS 378 Fingerprint Template. Technical report, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, March 2006. Published as NIST Interagency Report 7296.

[9] P. Grother and W. Salamon. Minex ii - an assessment of iso/iec 7816 card-based match-on-card capabilities - evaluation plan. Technical Report NISTIR 7485, National Institute of Standards and Technology, fingerprint.nist.gov/minexII/, August 2007.

[10] A. K. Jain, S. Prabhakar, and S. Chen. Combining multiple matchers for a high security fingerprint verification

system. Pattern Recognition Letters, 20(3):1371–1379, March 1999.

[11] J. Kittler, M. Hatef, R. Duin, and J. Matas. On combining classifiers. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine

Intelligence, 20(3), March 1998.

[12] M. J. J. Scott, N. Niranjan, and R. W. Prager. Svm-based speaker verification algorithm for match-on-card. In John N.

Carter and Mark S. Nixon, editors, BMVC. British Machine Vision Association, 1998.

[13] R. Snelick, U. Uludag, A. Mink, M. Indovina, and A. Jain. Large scale evaluation of multimodal biometric authentication using state-of-the-art systems. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 27(3):450–455, March

2005.

A Open-source support for MOC

MINEX II demonstrated an unprecedented level of openness in its evaluation methods. Specifically the test plan was

developed in conjunction with industry and both the template conversion and MATCH-ON-CARD test harness were fully

open during their development phase, as decribed below.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

36
MINEX II MATCH-ON-CARD March 15, 2011

A.1 Support for biometric data interchange standards

The BIOMDI open source project17 contains several software library and program packages for handling records specified

in INCITS and ISO biometric data format standards. The MINEX II test program uses the finger minutia package to process

the INCITS 378 records, converting them to ISO compact card format. In addition, several tools in this package are used

to validate the records, or simply to view them.

A.2 Support for MATCH-ON-CARD implementations

The BIOMAPP open source project18 contains the source code for the match on card test drivers, the tag-length-value

(TLV) object processing, and an example SDK test driver. The programs within the BIOMAPP project make use of the

finger minutiae libraries from the BIOMDI project. Also, the card test driver utilizes the pcsclite library described in

Appendix B.

The goal of the BIOMAPP match on card package is to achieve independence from any particular vendor’s middleware.

The software communicates directly with the card at the APDU level, removing any need for a middleware API or custom

smart card software.

B Hardware used

The testing software used on the NIST test systems is comprised of several layers: The NIST test driver; the PC/SC

library; the PC/SC daemon; and the USB device drivers. The NIST test driver is part of the BIOMAPP project, described

above. The operating system used was RedHat Enterprise Linux 4.

The PC/SC software used is part of the M.U.S.C.L.E. (www.linuxnet.com) project developing smartcard solutions for

the Linux, OS-X, and Solaris operating systems. Many Linux distributions include the pcsclite package, comprising the

PC/SC library and daemon. The smartcard reader driver used was the generic CCID driver. We initially used version

1.3.7 of the pcsc-lite driver (the default under Redhat 5) but migrated to version 1.4.0 after it was found that the older

version added a nearly constant delay to all APDU calls. The newer version was used for all times reported herein.

Testing was done on dual-CPU Intel Xeon based blade computers, running at 2.80 GHz. Each system has 2G of RAM.

The smartcard reader is the SCR 335 produced by SCM Microsystems, with a USB interface, and is CCID compliant. This

reader supports T=0 and T=1 protocols, 7816 Class A and AB cards, up to 8 MHz.

Note that in Phase III (2009) the PC/SC library had upgraded from version 1.4.0 to 1.5.2 because the operating system

had been updated, Redhat 5 vs. 4. While, the hardware was identical throughout, the time for all operations increased

by about 0.005 seconds. We consider that this kind of systematic error will be an operational reality unless specific

regression tests are performed after an update.

C Audit information

Study MINEX II PHASE II

Report generated Tue Mar 15 14:50:39 2011

Report name minex report.tex

Report last modified Tue Mar 15 08:42:36 2011

Report MD5 hexadecimal 9e992479eb53334179d8a7bfae557fb2

NIST contact minexII@nist.gov

17See http://biometrics.nist.gov/nigos

18Ibid.

MX2-IV-A = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-B = Neurotechnology-Athena MX2-IV-C = Morpho-Morpho MX2-IV-D = Morpho-Morpho

MX2-IV-E = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-F = ID3-Oberthur MX2-IV-G = Precise Biometrics-Spyrus MX2-IV-H = Precise Biometrics-G+D

MX2-IV-I = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-J = Precise Biometrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-K = Innovatrics-Gemalto MX2-IV-L = Innovatrics-Gemalto

MX2-IV-M = Micro-PackS-Gemalto MX2-IV-N = Dermalog-Gemalto MX2-IV-O = Dermalog-PAV Card MX2-IV-P = Dermalog-MaskTech

MX2-IV-Q = Inst Infocomm Rsrch-DART

37