Appendix C

ELFT‐EFS [Evaluation #1]

NIST Evaluation of Latent Fingerprint Technologies: Extended Feature Sets

Additional Results

Contents

C‐1 Raw score and probability score results.........................................................................................1

C‐2 CMC results comparing searches of Galleries E1, E2 and E3......................................................6

C‐3 Performance on latents removed due to markup issues............................................................11

C‐4 Proportion of hits at rank 1 ............................................................................................................11

C‐1 Raw score and probability score results

The following ROCs show the differences between the normalized “Probability” scores and the raw scores. In each

case, participants returned a raw score and a normalized score estimating the probability of a match. In no cases

did the raw scores provided better results than the normalized scores, though matcher D notably is better able to

populate the range of FPIR values using raw scores. In each case, the probability score is on the left and the

corresponding raw score on the right.

C‐1.1 Baseline‐QA dataset
2/12

ELFT‐EFS            Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT
3/12

ELFT‐EFS            Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT
4/12

ELFT‐EFS            Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT
5/12

           

   

ELFT‐EFS Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Baseline Dataset
6/12

           

                   

             

ELFT‐EFS Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT

C‐2 CMC results comparing searches of Galleries E1, E2 and E3

C‐2.1 Image‐only (LA) Results by Matcher, Baseline Dataset
7/12

ELFT‐EFS            Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT
8/12

           

                   

ELFT‐EFS Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT

C‐2.2 Image + full EFS (LE) Results by Matcher, Baseline Dataset
9/12

           

               

ELFT‐EFS Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT

C‐2.3 Minutiae Only (LG) Results by Matcher, Baseline Dataset
10/12

ELFT‐EFS            Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT
           

               

             

   

   

           

                                       

   

                                 

           

   

   

   

           

   

                           

             

                                                          

                                     

                                             

   

ELFT‐EFS Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT

C‐3 Performance on latents removed due to markup issues

Summary of rank‐1 hit rates for the latents removed due to markup issues (225 latents)

Latent Subset

LA LE LG

Image only Image + EFS Minutiae +

Ridge Counts

only (EBTS)

A 58.0 63.9 31.5

B 50.2 56.6 36.5

C 37.0 53.9 37.4

D 16.9 11.4* 7.76

E 37.0 45.7 22.4

C‐4 Proportion of hits at rank 1

The following tables show the proportion of the total hits made by a matcher at any rank (rank ≤ 100) that were

rank 1.†

Table 1 Proportion of hits at rank 1 for the Baseline‐QA dataset (458 latents, subset of Baseline)

Latent Subset

LA LB LC LD LE LF LG

Image only Image +

ROI

Image +

ROI +

Pattern

Class +

Qual map

Image +

Minutiae

Image +

EFS

Image +

EFS +

Skeleton

Minutiae

only

A 88% 91% 91% 90% 90% 91% 82%

B 87% 87% 87% 88% 88% 88% 78%

C 87% 85% 88% 90% 89% 89% 80%

D 80% NA NA 73% NA 75% 69%

E 82% 78% 82% 79% 83% 73% 68%

Table 2: Proportion of hits at rank 1 for the Baseline dataset (1114 latents)

Latent Subset

LA LE LG

Image only Image + EFS Minutiae only

A 92% 93% 82%

* Baseline‐QA results for subset LD were used as proxy for Baseline‐QA LE for the purpose of scoring Baseline LE

† This is sometimes known as the “Ray Moore statistic”. AFIS pioneer Ray Moore observed that this tended to be about 83% at

the time.

11/12
ELFT‐EFS            Preliminary Report – DRAFT FOR COMMENT

12/12

B 90% 90% 81%

C 89% 89% 86%

D 78% 74% 69%

E 84% 83% 74%