1. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationEXAMINATION OF STABILITY IN FINGERPRINT RECOGNITION ACROSS FORCE LEVELS By: Kevin OConnor

2. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Builds on previously funded research by DHS S&T Directorate Patent issued on force concept by previous research Zoo analysis for fingerprint performance ROC Curves performance analysis from a population viewpoint I noticed that the zoo plots were different at different force levels Wanted to know why, and then try and quantify it 3. RESEARCH QUESTION Is there instability of individuals performance scores in a fingerprint recognition system? 4. ZOO MENAGERIE DEFINITIONS G= Avg genuine performance measure H and L= High and Low, respectively I= Avg Imposter performance measure H and L= High and Low, respectively 5. DOVES GenuineImpostorTop 25%GHIHBottom 25%GLIL 6. WORMS GenuineImpostorTop 25%GHIHBottom 25%GLIL 7. CHAMELEONS GenuineImpostureTop 25%GHIHBottom 25%GLIL 8. PHANTOMS GenuineImpostureTop 25%GHIHBottom 25%GLIL 9. Phantoms PhantomsWorms WormsDoves DovesChameleons Chameleons 10. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationRESULTS 11. IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLES Force {5N, 7N, 9N, 11N, 13N} Animal characteristics 12. WORKFLOW: CLEAN DATA 154 subjects distilled from 260 Missing prints Wrong placement IRB info not filled out Subject information not listed 13. GENDER REPORT Distribution of Subjects Reporting Gender Category F M47.4% 52.6% 14. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS Do animal classifications change at different force levels for the same subject? Is there a score that can be assigned an individual to provide guidance to their inherent variability? 15. 5 N RESULTS Phantoms PhantomsWorms WormsDoves DovesChameleons Chameleons 16. 7 N RESULTS 17. 9 N RESULTS 18. 11 N RESULTS 19. 13 N RESULTS 20. ANIMAL CLASSIFICATION BREAKDOWN 5 N Count Animal Classification7 N Count 9 N Count 11 N Count 13 N CountChameleons1116221516Doves55966Normal119114102119117Phantoms1216161311Worms73514Total154154154154154 21. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationINSTANCES OF INSTABILITY FROM ZOO PLOTS 22. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationINSTABILITY WITHIN THE NORMAL CLASSIFICATION- 135RI 23. 5N 24. 7N 25. 9N 26. 11 N 27. 13 N 28. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationINTRA-ANIMAL INSTABILITY 34RI 29. 5N 30. 7N 31. 9N 32. 11N 33. 13N 34. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationINTER-ANIMAL INSTABILITY - 117RI 35. 5N 36. 7N 37. 9N 38. 11N 39. 13N 40. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationBORDERLINE CASE 41. 13 N - INDIVIDUALS 172 AND 140 42. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationSTABILITY 43. 7N PHANTOM 44. 9N NORMAL 45. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationSTABILITY SCORE INDEX 46. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationSTABILITY SCORE INDEX 135RI 47. 5N 48. 5 N TO 7 NS.S.I =0.3512 49. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationSTABILITY SCORE INDEX 34RI 50. 7 N TO 9 NS.S.I= 0.129 6 51. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationSTABILITY SCORE INDEX 117RI 52. 9 N TO 11 NS.S.I= 0.5537 53. BIOMETRICS LAB Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and InnovationSTABILITY SCORE INDEX 178RI 54. 7 N TO 9 NS.S.I= 0.0308 55. SCATTERPLOT OF STABILITY SCORES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL St abi l i t y Scor e acr oss For ce Level s 0.6Variable 5-7N 7-9N 9-11N 11-13NSt abilit y Scor e I ndex0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0007RI50100150Subject I D200259RI250 56. CONCLUSIONS Results show instability in the performance of individuals in the right index Zoo plots of 5 force levels Table Breakdown Cases of Instability Stability score index developed to quantify instability 57. FUTURE WORK Further studies could observe other digits of the hand (left index, left middle, right middle, etc.) Future research could examine other force levels Examine other matching algorithms Change variable (habituation, time, multiple sensors, multiple modalities) 58. RELEVANT IMPACT I want to understand whether a subject is a poor performer, or whether there is something that can be done. If someone is stable, this helps reduce the time for data collection.