Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for Configurations of Any Number of Minutiæ

Journal of Forensic Sciences (Impact Factor: 1.24). 12/2006; 52(1):54 - 64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00327.x

ABSTRACT Recent court challenges have highlighted the need for statistical research on fingerprint identification. This paper proposes a model for computing likelihood ratios (LRs) to assess the evidential value of comparisons with any number of minutiæ. The model considers minutiae type, direction and relative spatial relationships. It expands on previous work on three minutiae by adopting a spatial modeling using radial triangulation and a probabilistic distortion model for assessing the numerator of the LR. The model has been tested on a sample of 686 ulnar loops and 204 arches. Features vectors used for statistical analysis have been obtained following a preprocessing step based on Gabor filtering and image processing to extract minutiae data. The metric used to assess similarity between two feature vectors is based on an Euclidean distance measure. Tippett plots and rates of misleading evidence have been used as performance indicators of the model. The model has shown encouraging behavior with low rates of misleading evidence and a LR power of the model increasing significantly with the number of minutiæ. The LRs that it provides are highly indicative of identity of source on a significant proportion of cases, even when considering configurations with few minutiæ. In contrast with previous research, the model, in addition to minutia type and direction, incorporates spatial relationships of minutiæ without introducing probabilistic independence assumptions. The model also accounts for finger distortion.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the context of the investigation of the use of automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS) for the evaluation of fingerprint evidence, the current study presents investigations into the variability of scores from an AFIS system when fingermarks from a known donor are compared to fingerprints that are not from the same source. The ultimate goal is to propose a model, based on likelihood ratios, which allows the evaluation of mark-to-print comparisons. In particular, this model, through its use of AFIS technology, benefits from the possibility of using a large amount of data, as well as from an already built-in proximity measure, the AFIS score. More precisely, the numerator of the LR is obtained from scores issued from comparisons between impressions from the same source and showing the same minutia configuration. The denominator of the LR is obtained by extracting scores from comparisons of the questioned mark with a database of non-matching sources. This paper focuses solely on the assignment of the denominator of the LR. We refer to it by the generic term of between-finger variability. The issues addressed in this paper in relation to between-finger variability are the required sample size, the influence of the finger number and general pattern, as well as that of the number of minutiae included and their configuration on a given finger. Results show that reliable estimation of between-finger variability is feasible with 10,000 scores. These scores should come from the appropriate finger number/general pattern combination as defined by the mark. Furthermore, strategies of obtaining between-finger variability when these elements cannot be conclusively seen on the mark (and its position with respect to other marks for finger number) have been presented. These results immediately allow case-by-case estimation of the between-finger variability in an operational setting.
    Forensic science international 02/2014; 235:86-101. · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent studies, the evidential value of the similarity of minutiae configurations of fingermarks and fingerprints, for example expressed by automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS), is determined by likelihood ratios (LRs). The paper explores whether there is an effect on LRs if conditioning takes place on specified fingers, fingerprints, or fingermarks under competing hypotheses: In addition, an approach is explored where conditioning is asymmetric. Comparisons between fingerprints and simulated fingermarks with eight minutiae are performed to produce similarity score distributions for each type of conditioning, given a fixed AFIS matching algorithm. Both similarity scores and LRs are significantly different if the conditioning changes. Given a common-source scenario, "LRs" resulting from asymmetric conditioning are on average higher. The difference may reach a factor of 2000. As conditioning on a suspect's finger(print) is labor-intensive and requires a cooperating suspect, it is recommended to just condition on the number of minutiae in the fingermark.
    Journal of Forensic Sciences 11/2013; · 1.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Friction ridge impression appearance can be affected due to the type of surface touched and pressure exerted during deposition. Understanding the magnitude of alterations, regions affected, and systematic/detectable changes occurring would provide useful information. Geometric morphometric techniques were used to statistically characterize these changes. One hundred and fourteen prints were obtained from a single volunteer and impressed with heavy, normal, and light pressure on computer paper, soft gloss paper, 10-print card stock, and retabs. Six hundred prints from 10 volunteers were rolled with heavy, normal, and light pressure on soft gloss paper and 10-print card stock. Results indicate that while different substrates/pressure levels produced small systematic changes in fingerprints, the changes were small in magnitude: roughly the width of one ridge. There were no detectable changes in the degree of random variability of prints associated with either pressure or substrate. In conclusion, the prints transferred reliably regardless of pressure or substrate
    Journal of Forensic Sciences 05/2014; · 1.24 Impact Factor