Minutiae Interoperability 

Exchange Test

(MINEX 04)

C. L. Wilson 

NIST
Exchange of Fingerprint D

Images or Templates

Factors To Consider:•Accuracy•Processing time•Size on card
Minutiae Example
Fingerprint Matching

1. Enrollment2. Subsequent 

attempts at identity verification

Ma

3. Matching

No

?

=
Types of Templates

• Proprietary templates

– Individual vendor’s representation of im

• Standard templates: INCITS 378 fo

– MIN:A templates

• codes minutiae coordinates (x, y), angle (

& quality

– MIN:B templates

• MIN:A data plus ridge count, core, and del

information
Largest Biometric Test to Da

•

4 datasets:

– POEBVA, DHS2, POE, and DOS

• Number of Samples

– >60,000 matched fingerprint pairs– >120,000 non-match fingerprints

• 14 vendors

– Six participants in MIN:B testing

• 4.4 billion comparisons resulting in >

GB of scores & >1 terabyte of data i
Vendors

A. Cogent Systems 

Incorporated

B. Dermalog Identification 

Systems GMBH

C. Bioscrypt IncorporatedD. Sagem Morpho 

Incorporated

E. NeurotechnologijaF. InnovatricsG. NEC Corporation

H. Technoimagia 

Corporation

I. Identix Incorpora

J. Biologica Sistem

K. SPEX ForensicsL. Secugen Corpo

M. NITGen Corpora

N. Cross Match 

Technologies
MINEX Questions

• Do standard templates give accurac

comparable with proprietary (imagebased) implementations?

• Can template data be generated an

matched by different vendors withou

increase in error rates?
Detection Error Tradeoff Cu
Types of Tests

• Single- v. Two- Finger

• Proprietary v. Native• Native v. Interoperable (Scenario 1)

• Scenarios 2,3,&4• Four datasets of different quality
Results 1

• The best proprietary templates are

superior to the MIN:A & MIN:B tempin accuracy.

• The enhanced MIN:B template perfo

similarly to the basic MIN:A template
Proprietary and Native Performance for S

Finger Test at FMR=0.01 for POEBVA d

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K L 

M

N

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

FNMR

Vendor

ProprietaryMIN:AMIN:B

0.0160.0140.012

0.01

0.0080.0060.0040.002

0

0.018

0.02

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J K L 

Vendor

FNMR 
Proprietary and Native Performance for 

Finger Test at FMR=0.01 for POEBVA d

A 

B

C D 

E

F G 

H I J

0

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

K

L

M

N

Vendor

ProprietaryMIN:AMIN:B

0.0160.0140.012

0.01

0.0080.0060.0040.002

0

0.018

0.02

FNM

ProprietaryMIN:A MIN:B

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J K

Vendor
Results 2

• As with most recent tests (by NIST a

others), the error rates between matalgorithms vary by at least an order magnitude.

• Two-finger authentication with stand

templates can achieve the accuracy single-finger authentication withproprietary templates.
D E

F G H I J K L M

Interoperability Example 

FNMRs @ FMR=0.0

• Scenario 1, Two-Finger, P• Vendors of Rank 1, 8, & 1

authentication templategeneration/matching

v.All enrollment template ge

A B C

N

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.30.2

0.1

0

EnrollmentTemplateGenerator

D(#1)E(#8)J (#14)

0.0180.0160.0140.012

0.01

0.0080.0060.0040.002

0

0.02

A B C D E F G H I J K 

EnrollmentTemplateGenerator

FNMR
D E

I J K L M

1

Interoperability Example 

FNM

0.9

0.8

0.70.6

0.5

0.40.3

0.20.1

0

A B C

N

F G H Authentication Template Generators/Matchers

E (#1)A(#8)H(#14)

FNMRs @ FMR=0.0

• Scenario 1, Two-Finge

data

• Vendors of Rank 1, 8, 

enrollment template ge

v.All authentication temp

generators/matchers

0.02

0.0180.0160.0140.012

0.01

0.0080.0060.0040.002

0

FNMR

A B C D E F G H I J K 

AuthenticationTemplateGenerators/Matchers
Results 3

• The leading vendors in template

generation are not always the leadermatching and vice-versa.

– Some template generators produce sta

templates that are matched more accuthan others. Some combination of temfail completely.

– Some matchers compare templates m

accurately than others.
Finding the Largest Interoperable G

FNMRs at FMR=0.01 

for Scenario 1,

Two-Finger, POEBVA 
Finding the Largest Interoperable G

FNMRs at FMR=0.01

for Scenario 1,

Two-Finger, POEBVA 
Finding the Largest Interoperable G

C

E

0.0072 0.00730.0032 0.01030.0086 0.0094

B

FN

FNMRs at FMR=0.01

for Scenario 1, Two-Finger, POEBVA 
Largest Group for 2-Finger POEBVA s

max FNMR≤0.01 @ FMR=0.01
Interoperable Template 

Gene

and Matchers

Dataset Criterion Value of Temp. 

# T

(s.t. FNMR≤0.01 Criterion Gen’s Ma

@ FMR=0.01)

POEBVA group max 0.0087 A,B,C,

8 A,B,C

D,E,F, G,N

POEBVA group mean 0.0094 A,B,C, 11 A,B,C

D,E,F, G,I,LG,K,L, M,N

DHS2 group max 0.0081 B,D,N

3 A,D

DHS2 group mean 0.0095 B,D,K 

4 A,C,D

N
Results 4

• Certification of an interoperable gro

products requires some prior specification of the required accura

– More products will interoperate when 

accuracy requirement is low and vice 

– More products can be certified if the g

mean error rate is below a threshold their worst interoperable pair is used certification.
Results 5

• Performance is sensitive to the qua

the dataset.

– Applies to both proprietary and intero

templates.

– Two higher quality datasets (POEBVA 

POE) provide reasonable interoperabTwo lower quality datasets (DOS and do not.
For more information

• See the report online

http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex04/

• Contact

Charles Wilsoncwilson@nist.gov(301) 975-2080
Proprietary and Native

Performance

I J K L M N

0.01

0.0090.0080.0070.0060.0050.0040.0030.0020.001

0

A B C D E F G H

Vendor

FNM