Biometric Performance 

A Systems Perspective 

Greg Cannon 

March 2010 
Overview – Performance Factors to 

Address 

• Improve Interoperability 

• Improve Usability 

• Encourage Innovation Innovation 

• Adopt Systems Technology 

Interoperability 

Usability 
Improve Data Format Interoperability 

Biometric Images 

• Goal: Allow Vendors to Converge on “Truth” 

• Issues are Compression, Segmentation, Image Quality, 

Illumination, Subject “Correctness”. 

• Automate “Biometric-ex” to drive Iterative Refinement 

– Hosted and Actively Managed Databases and Algorithms 

– Images from Multiple Vendor Sensors 

– Database consists of images 

– Matcher Interoperability Testing 

– Algorithm Under Test – Upload/Test/Delete 

– Private Report of Achieved Interoperability 

• Restricted Access to Image Database for Training Purposes 

• Extrapolated Performance to Reduce Database/System costs 

• Regular Public Interoperability Testing to push the industry 
Improve Data Format Interoperability 

Fingerprint Minutia Templates 

• Goal: Allow Vendors to Converge on “Truth” 

• Issues are Minutia Placement and Angle Accuracy, Image 

Quality, Zonal Quality, Ridge Counts, and Minutia Quality 

• Leverage Fingerprint Infrastructure 

• Refining Template Generators separately from Template 

Matchers, and assure linkage between images and associated 

templates. 

• We should use restricted access to fingerprint images and 

anonymous associated templates. This would allow vendors to 

perform some detailed pairwise analysis of minutia. Vendors 

could then recognize deficiencies in their location procedures 

and address them 
Consider Risk in Quality Algorithm 

Standardization 

NFIQ is Wonderful 

• It is predictive of matching performance 

• It assures a high level of consistency 

from different systems, especially when 

a sample must be used in an unknown 

AFIS or in multiple AFIS systems from 

different vendors. 

NFIQ is EVIL 

• we should not overly rely on a lowest 

common denominator approach to

finger quality.

• a static algorithm very well could lead to 

inappropriate recapture and fusion 

decisions – especially as matching 

technology improves. We need to keep 

NFIQ dynamic also. 

We need to *Utilize* the ability to perform vendor specific quality algorithms and also to 

perform multiple quality algorithms (including NFIQ.) when warranted. Our workflows 

must be better informed about intended use. Different use cases might need different 

weightings to decide about recapture. 
Improve Biometric Systems: 

Consistent Workflow Provisioning 

• Our Capture Workflow at Enrollment and at Matching 

should be improved. Let us address a consistent 

specification of how and what we want to capture, and 

improve our Workflows... 

– Data driven (xml based on a standard) 

– They should declare intended use 

– They should be quality driven 

• What Algorithms 

• Retry Specifications 

1 2 3 

– They should be sensitive to differences in fingerprint utliity. 

– They should be robust. If a wrong hand is detected, it can be used. 

If a finger fails sequence check, it might still be able to be used 

– They should support queuing for pipelined enrollment processes 

– They should support contingency when interlinked with matching 

algorithms 
Improve Biometric Systems: 

Address our Software Architecture 

• We need to target our core technology at 

software developers – beyond BioAPI. We 

should probably aggressively target web 

services as the means by which software 

developers acquire, process, assess, and 

match biometric samples. This is easily 

supported by all major software 

development platforms (e.g. c# and java). 

--

--

-- --

--

--

• This should also allow us to provide more 

unified capabilities with respect to 

distributed and virtual computing resources, 

as well as providing a more consistent 

approach to issues of privacy and security. 
Improve Biometric Usability 

Mobility 

• Many field use cases 

– Law Enforcement Citation 

– Watchlist 

– Document Verification, 

– Temporary Population Management (Emergency 

Response), Temporary Credentialing 

– In Field Enrollment 

• Many system Issues we need to address 

– Smaller Display – Consistent, Recognized Icons 

– Limited Processing Power – Speed/Accuracy Tradeoffs 

– Limited Capture Capabilities - Tradeoffs 

– Limited Connectivity – Image Compression and Templates 

– Less Open Software Platform 
Improve Biometric Performance 

Utilize Similarity Information 

• We often focus on the painful parts of the genuine and 

imposter distributions. We don’t think enough about 

leveraging the other parts. 

• We could/should 

– Not make the decision as often, and provide guidance 

– Guide the access of privileges 

– Encourage the use of other information (non-biometric fusion) 

– Make more informed decisions regarding speed/accuracy tradeoffs 

in other biometric calculations. 
Improve Biometric Performance 

Consider Processing Time 

• Accuracy is probably not our industry’s biggest 

problem. With fusion of multimodal biometrics, 

our accuracy will not prevent us from being 

utilized in many applications. 

• We must focus more on speed... 

– Quality Assessment 

– Compression 

– Template Generation 

– Template Matching 
Encourage Innovation within a 

Standards Based Industry 

• We need to balance the needs of interoperability with 

mechanisms for improved performance with innovations 

• Support Proprietary Image Format Extensions – e.g. 

– Diversity Information (Perspective, Illumination) 

– “State” Information 

– Illumination/Imaging Information 

– Finger (Pressure Information, Electrical Response) 

– Iris (Curvature Information, Perspective Information, Rotation Estimate) 

– Face (Perspective Information) 

• Encourage Proprietary Template Format Extensions 

• Increase the Demand for Base Interoperability 

• Room for Innovation with Standard as BASIS for value 

add. 
Summary and Questions 

Thanks