White-Box Evaluation of Fingerprint Matchers

Prevailing evaluations of fingerprint recognition systems have been performed as end-to-end black-box tests of fingerprint identification or verification accuracy. However, performance of the end-to-end system is subject to errors arising in any of the constituent modules, including: fingerprint reader, preprocessing, feature extraction, and matching. While a few studies have conducted white-box testing of the fingerprint reader and feature extraction modules of fingerprint recognition systems, little work has been devoted towards white-box evaluations of the fingerprint matching sub-module. We report results of a controlled, white-box evaluation of one open-source and two commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) state-of-the-art minutiae-based matchers in terms of their robustness against controlled perturbations (random noise, and non-linear distortions) introduced into the input minutiae feature sets. Experiments were conducted on 10,000 synthetically generated fingerprints. Our white-box evaluations show performance comparisons between different minutiae-based matchers in the presence of various perturbations and non-linear distortion, which were not previously shown with black-box tests. Furthermore, our white-box evaluations reveal that the performance of fingerprint minutiae matchers are more susceptible to non-linear distortion and missing minutiae than spurious minutiae and small positional displacements of the minutiae locations. The measurement uncertainty in fingerprint matching is also developed.

[1]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  Principal Warps: Thin-Plate Splines and the Decomposition of Deformations , 1989, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[2]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Changes in latent fingerprint examiners' markup between analysis and comparison. , 2015, Forensic science international.

[3]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  3D Whole Hand Targets: Evaluating Slap and Contactless Fingerprint Readers , 2016, 2016 International Conference of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG).

[4]  Craig I. Watson,et al.  Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation , 2014 .

[5]  Raffaele Cappelli,et al.  SFinGe : an Approach to Synthetic Fingerprint Generation , 2004 .

[6]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Benchmarking Fingerprint Minutiae Extractors , 2017, 2017 International Conference of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG).

[7]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations , 2014, PloS one.

[8]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Design and Fabrication of 3D Fingerprint Targets , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

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

[10]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Universal 3D Wearable Fingerprint Targets: Advancing Fingerprint Reader Evaluations , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[11]  Pillai Praveen Thulasidharan,et al.  Detection and rectification of distorted fingerprints , 2017, 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control (I2C2).

[12]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Statistical Models for Assessing the Individuality of Fingerprints , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[13]  Eric E. Smith,et al.  Uncertainty analysis , 2001 .

[14]  Rex Black,et al.  Managing the Testing Process: Practical Tools and Techniques for Managing Hardware and Software Testing , 2009 .

[15]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Gold Fingers: 3D Targets for Evaluating Capacitive Readers , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[16]  Christoph Busch,et al.  Towards NFIQ II Lite :: self-organizing maps for fingerprint image quality assessment , 2013 .

[17]  R. A. Hicklin,et al.  Gaze behavior and cognitive states during fingerprint target group localization , 2019, Cognitive research: principles and implications.