For each of the four tradeoff curves in Fig 2a, the optimal policy along the different points on the curve.

<p>Each policy is denoted by a pair of numbers, where the first number corresponds to the pretrial release for non-felonies (left column of <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0144967#pone.0144967.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>) and the second number corresponds to the pretrial release for felonies (middle column of <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0144967#pone.0144967.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>).</p

For each of the four options for split sentencing in the right column of Table 1, the optimal (i.e., optimizing over the remaining 16 options in Table 1) tradeoff curves of the annual rearrest rate vs.

<p><b>(a)</b> the mean jail population and <b>(b)</b> mean jail overcrowding. The circle denotes the status quo policy for LA County in early 2014.</p

A graphical depiction of Eq (12).

<p>A graphical depiction of <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0163956#pone.0163956.e034" target="_blank">Eq (12)</a>.</p

A depiction of the process flow.

<p>The two key decisions (dotted lines) are whether to offer pretrial release (denoted by PTR?) and split sentencing (SS?), where the latter is available only to felons. The key tradeoff is between public safety, as measured by recidivism (dashed lines), and jail population, which is the total number of inmates waiting for arraignment, in pretrial custody or serving a post-sentence jail term. Each arrival has a charge type (non-felony or felony) and a CSRA risk category (low, medium or high), and some of the routing probabilities and time durations are functions of charge type, risk category and/or pretrial status (release or custody).</p

Results for the independence version of the problem with <i>D</i>₁ = 5 initial donors.

<p>Results for the independence version of the problem with <i>D</i>₁ = 5 initial donors.</p

Parameter values for the fingerprint model.

<p>The inclusion scenario incorporates the FTA rate of 0.0187.</p

Delay times for both stages.

<p>The number of fingers acquired in stage is for .</p

Results for the three benchmark policies and the six policies in <b>Table 1</b> in the exclusion scenario.

<p>FRR vs. verification delay tradeoff curves for FRR equals (<b>a</b>) , (<b>b</b>) , (<b>c</b>) and (<b>d</b>) . The mean number of fingers acquired per resident () and the fraction of residents who have their irises acquired are reported for points, a,b,c,x,y,z along two of the tradeoff curves.</p

Parameter values for the iris model.

<p>The inclusion scenario incorporates the FTA rate of 0.0033.</p

The general two-stage class of policies.

<p>In stage 1, for each resident we choose the number of fingers () to acquire and whether ) or not ( to acquire the irises, based on the BFD and BID scores . We then observe the new similarity scores of the acquired biometrics, where the fingerprint scores are ranked according to the index . We compute the likelihood ratio and accept the resident as genuine if is greater than the upper threshold , reject the resident if is smaller than the lower threshold , and otherwise continue to stage 2, where both irises (if ) and additional fingerprints are acquired. Finally, we compute the likelihood ratio based on the biometrics acquired in stage 2 and then accept or reject the resident using the second-stage threshold .</p