Statistical Models for Assessing the Individuality of Fingerprints

Following the Daubert ruling in 1993, forensic evidence based on fingerprints was first challenged in the 1999 case of the U.S. versus Byron C. Mitchell and, subsequently, in 20 other cases involving fingerprint evidence. The main concern with the admissibility of fingerprint evidence is the problem of individualization, namely, that the fundamental premise for asserting the uniqueness of fingerprints has not been objectively tested and matching error rates are unknown. In order to assess the error rates, we require quantifying the variability of fingerprint features, namely, minutiae in the target population. A family of finite mixture models has been developed in this paper to represent the distribution of minutiae in fingerprint images, including minutiae clustering tendencies and dependencies in different regions of the fingerprint image domain. A mathematical model that computes the probability of a random correspondence (PRC) is derived based on the mixture models. A PRC of 2.25 times10-6 corresponding to 12 minutiae matches was computed for the NIST4 Special Database, when the numbers of query and template minutiae both equal 46. This is also the estimate of the PRC for a target population with a similar composition as that of NIST4.

[1]  Kanti V. Mardia,et al.  Statistics of Directional Data , 1972 .

[2]  G. McLachlan,et al.  The EM algorithm and extensions , 1996 .

[3]  Harold Cummins,et al.  FINGER PRINTS, PALMS AND SOLES , 1944 .

[4]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  FVC2002: Second Fingerprint Verification Competition , 2002, Object recognition supported by user interaction for service robots.

[5]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  On the Individuality of Fingerprints , 2002, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[6]  S. Sclove The Occurrence of Fingerprint Characteristics as a Two-Dimensional Process , 1979 .

[7]  Noel A Cressie,et al.  Statistics for Spatial Data. , 1992 .

[8]  J. Koehler,et al.  The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science , 2005, Science.

[9]  L. L. Cam,et al.  Asymptotic Methods In Statistical Decision Theory , 1986 .

[10]  R. F. Turner,et al.  Fingerprints, Palms and Soles , 1948 .

[11]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Handbook of Fingerprint Recognition , 2005, Springer Professional Computing.

[12]  S. Cole Is Fingerprint Identification Valid? Rhetorics of Reliability in Fingerprint Proponents’ Discourse , 2006 .

[13]  Mike Rees,et al.  5. Statistics for Spatial Data , 1993 .

[14]  John I. Thornton,et al.  A Critical Analysis of Quantitative Fingerprint Individuality Models , 1986 .

[15]  Tal Golan,et al.  :Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification , 2002 .

[16]  Wang Nan-gao On the criminal action , 2003 .

[17]  JoAnn Buscaglia,et al.  Review of the Scientific Basis for Friction Ridge Comparisons as a Means of Identification: Committee Findings and Recommendations , 2006 .

[18]  Simon A. Cole,et al.  Witnessing Identification , 1998 .

[19]  C. William,et al.  The Accelerated Civil Jury Trial Program in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania , 1967 .

[20]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  FVC2000: Fingerprint Verification Competition , 2002, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[21]  Simon A. Cole,et al.  What Counts for Identity? The Historical Origins of the Methodology of Latent Fingerprint Identification , 1999, Science in Context.

[22]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Statistical Models for Assessing the Individuality of Fingerprints , 2007, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur..

[23]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Model-Based Clustering, Discriminant Analysis, and Density Estimation , 2002 .

[24]  Arun Ross,et al.  A deformable model for fingerprint matching , 2005, Pattern Recognit..

[25]  J. Dillinger FINGERPRINTS , 1938 .

[26]  J. Koehler,et al.  When Are People Persuaded By DNA Match Statistics? , 2001, Law and human behavior.

[27]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Algorithms for Clustering Data , 1988 .