4 Comparison to PFT II

The PFT II evaluation ran at NIST from February 2010 until May 2019. The plots and tables in this section use identical datasets and comparison pairs as PFT II and are directly comparable to results posted on the NIST website for PFT II:

https://nist.gov/itl/iad/image-group/proprietary-fingerprint-template-evaluation-pftii

4.1 All Fingers

Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 shows the DET of all fingers for each dataset evaluated in PFT II. Curves are linked at equivalent score thresholds for specific false match rates on the best performing dataset.

Detection error tradeoff of all comparisons from all fingers in PFT II, separated by dataset. Curves are linked at equivalent score thresholds.

Figure 4.1: Detection error tradeoff of all comparisons from all fingers in PFT II, separated by dataset. Curves are linked at equivalent score thresholds.

Table 4.1: False non-match rate values at specific false match rates for the PFT II datasets combined.
Dataset FNMR @ FMR = 0.0001 FNMR @ FMR = 0.001 FNMR @ FMR = 0.01
PFT II: AZ+LA County 0.1389 0.0797 0.0420
PFT II: DHS2 0.1341 0.0978 0.0700
PFT II: POE+BVA 0.0610 0.0375 0.0222

4.2 Index Fingers

Figure 4.2 and Table 4.2 show the DET of index fingers over the three datasets evaluated in PFT II. Combined finger positions were generated by sum fusion.

Detection error tradeoff of index fingers compared in PFT II. Combined finger positions were generated by sum fusion.

Figure 4.2: Detection error tradeoff of index fingers compared in PFT II. Combined finger positions were generated by sum fusion.

Table 4.2: False non-match rate values at specific false match rates for the PFT II datasets.
FRGP FNMR @ FMR = 0.0001 FNMR @ FMR = 0.001 FNMR @ FMR = 0.01
PFT II: AZ+LA County
R Index 0.0684 0.0469 0.0301
L Index 0.0839 0.0561 0.0362
R & L Index 0.0252 0.0156 0.0096
PFT II: DHS2
R Index 0.1339 0.0961 0.0699
L Index 0.1326 0.0999 0.0700
R & L Index 0.0480 0.0376 0.0294
PFT II: POE+BVA
R Index 0.0518 0.0279 0.0150
L Index 0.0707 0.0472 0.0293
R & L Index 0.0095 0.0046 0.0023

4.3 Arizona/Los Angeles County

Figure 4.3 and Table 4.3 show the DET of all finger combinations compared in PFT II’s evaluation of the combined datasets from the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Curves in each dataset are separated by the impression types compared. Combined finger positions were generated by sum fusion.

Detection error tradeoff of comparisons from the PFT II AZ/LA dataset, separated by impression type. Combined finger positions were generated by sum fusion.

Figure 4.3: Detection error tradeoff of comparisons from the PFT II AZ/LA dataset, separated by impression type. Combined finger positions were generated by sum fusion.

Table 4.3: False non-match rate values at specific false match rates for the PFT II AZ+LA County dataset.
FRGP FNMR @ FMR = 0.0001 FNMR @ FMR = 0.001 FNMR @ FMR = 0.01
Plain to Plain
R Thumb 0.2831 0.1871 0.1029
R Index 0.0630 0.0435 0.0297
R Middle 0.0634 0.0428 0.0287
L Thumb 0.2535 0.1700 0.0932
L Index 0.0860 0.0578 0.0383
L Middle 0.0736 0.0513 0.0338
R & L Thumb 0.1380 0.0852 0.0425
R & L Index 0.0218 0.0139 0.0090
R & L Middle 0.0189 0.0134 0.0086
Plain to Rolled
R Thumb 0.1256 0.0864 0.0573
R Index 0.0901 0.0621 0.0405
R Middle 0.0918 0.0662 0.0431
L Thumb 0.1533 0.1022 0.0603
L Index 0.1045 0.0711 0.0468
L Middle 0.1050 0.0694 0.0454
R & L Thumb 0.0600 0.0374 0.0228
R & L Index 0.0324 0.0208 0.0130
R & L Middle 0.0338 0.0212 0.0135
Rolled to Rolled
R Thumb 0.0694 0.0414 0.0223
R Index 0.0423 0.0282 0.0167
R Middle 0.0570 0.0353 0.0195
L Thumb 0.0727 0.0504 0.0242
L Index 0.0483 0.0310 0.0182
L Middle 0.0577 0.0381 0.0218
R & L Thumb 0.0178 0.0114 0.0063
R & L Index 0.0132 0.0077 0.0046
R & L Middle 0.0159 0.0101 0.0058