Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and automated fingerprint identification systems--modelling within finger variability.

Recent challenges and errors in fingerprint identification have highlighted the need for assessing the information content of a papillary pattern in a systematic way. In particular, estimation of the statistical uncertainty associated with this type of evidence is more and more called upon. The approach used in the present study is based on the assessment of likelihood ratios (LRs). This evaluative tool weighs the likelihood of evidence given two mutually exclusive hypotheses. The computation of likelihood ratios on a database of marks of known sources (matching the unknown and non-matching the unknown mark) allows an estimation of the evidential contribution of fingerprint evidence. LRs are computed taking advantage of the scores obtained from an automated fingerprint identification system and hence are based exclusively on level II features (minutiae). The AFIS system attributes a score to any comparison (fingerprint to fingerprint, mark to mark and mark to fingerprint), used here as a proximity measure between the respective arrangements of minutiae. The numerator of the LR addresses the within finger variability and is obtained by comparing the same configurations of minutiae coming from the same source. Only comparisons where the same minutiae are visible both on the mark and on the print are therefore taken into account. The denominator of the LR is obtained by cross-comparison with a database of prints originating from non-matching sources. The estimation of the numerator of the LR is much more complex in terms of specific data requirements than the estimation of the denominator of the LR (that requires only a large database of prints from an non-associated population). Hence this paper addresses specific issues associated with the numerator or within finger variability. This study aims at answering the following questions: (1) how a database for modelling within finger variability should be acquired; (2) whether or not the visualisation technique or the choice of different minutiae arrangements may influence that modelling and (3) what is the magnitude of LRs that can be expected from such a model. Results show that within finger variability is affected by the visualisation technique used on the mark, the number of minutiae and the minutiae configuration. They also show that the rates of misleading evidence in the likelihood ratios obtained for one of the configurations examined are low.

[1]  Andrzej Drygajlo,et al.  Handling mismatch in corpus-based forensic speaker recognition , 2004, Odyssey.

[2]  Istituto italiano degli attuari.  Giornale dell'Istituto italiano degli attuari , 1930 .

[3]  Siomon A. Cole,et al.  More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification , 2007 .

[4]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  Statistical analysis of STR data , 1996 .

[5]  Lawrence M Wein,et al.  Using fingerprint image quality to improve the identification performance of the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  David Stoney,et al.  Measurement of Fingerprint Individuality , 2001 .

[7]  Simon A. Cole,et al.  Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and Back Again , 2004 .

[8]  Jiansheng Chen,et al.  A Statistical Study on the Fingerprint Minutiae Distribution , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing Proceedings.

[9]  Javier Ortega-Garcia,et al.  Bayesian analysis of fingerprint, face and signature evidences with automatic biometric systems. , 2005, Forensic science international.

[10]  Anil Alexander,et al.  Forensic automatic speaker recognition using Bayesian interpretation and statistical compensation for mismatched conditions , 2007 .

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

[12]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for Configurations of Any Number of Minutiæ , 2007, Journal of forensic sciences.

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

[14]  Walter Bär,et al.  Advances in Forensic Haemogenetics , 1988, Advances in Forensic Haemogenetics.

[15]  Didier Meuwly.  Reconnaissance de locuteurs en sciences forensiques: l'apport d'une approche automatique , 2000 .

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

[17]  Julian Fiérrez,et al.  Between-Source Modelling for Likelihood Ratio Computation in Forensic Biometric Recognition , 2005, AVBPA.

[18]  D. Freedman,et al.  On the histogram as a density estimator:L2 theory , 1981 .

[19]  Didier Meuwly,et al.  Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for Configurations of Three Minutiæ , 2006, Journal of forensic sciences.

[20]  Sargur N. Srihari,et al.  Generative models for fingerprint individuality using ridge models , 2008, 2008 19th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.

[21]  Henry C. Lee,et al.  Advances in Fingerprint Technology , 1991 .

[22]  Jiansheng Chen,et al.  The statistical modelling of fingerprint minutiae distribution with implications for fingerprint individuality studies , 2008, 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[23]  Sargur N. Srihari,et al.  Generative Models for Fingerprint Individuality using Ridge Types , 2007 .

[24]  Jiansheng Chen,et al.  A Minutiae-based Fingerprint Individuality Model , 2007, 2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.