Evaluation of AFIS-Ranked Latent Fingerprint Matched Templates

  • Ram P. Krish
  • Julian Fierrez
  • Daniel Ramos
  • Raymond Veldhuis
  • Ruifang Wang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8333)

Abstract

The methodology currently practiced in latent print examination (known as ACE-V) yields only a decision as result, namely individualization, exclusion or inconclusive. From such a decision, it is not possible to express the strength of opinion of a forensic examiner quantitatively with a scientific basis to the criminal justice system. In this paper, we propose a framework to generate a score from the matched template generated by the forensic examiner. Such a score can be viewed as a measure of confidence of a forensic examiner quantitatively, which in turn can be used in statistics-based evidence evaluation framework, for e.g, likelihood ratio. Together with the description and evaluation of new realistic forensic case driven score computation, we also exploit the developed experimental framework to understand more about matched templates in forensic fingerprint databases.

Keywords

ACE-V methodology criminology forensics latent fingerprint likelihood ratio quantification of evidence 

References

  1. 1.
    Barnes, J.G.: Chapter 1, History, The Fingerprint Sourcebook, U.S Department of Justice (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nagar, A., Choi, H.-S., Jain, A.K.: Evidential Value of Automated Latent Fingerprint Comparison: An Empirical Approach, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jain, A.K., Feng, J.: Latent Fingerprint Matching. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 88–100 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neumann, C., Evett, I.: James Skerrett, Quantifying the weight of evidence assigned to a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm. J. R. Statist. Soc. A 175, 371–415 (2012)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evett, I., et al.: Expressing evaluative opinions: A position statement. Science and Justice (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis. Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach, NIST (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Champod, C., Lennard, C.J., Margot, P., Stoilovic, M.: Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions. CRC (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cole, S.: More than zero: Accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 985–1078 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alonso-Fernandez, F., Fierrez, J., Ortega-Garcia, J.: Quality Measures in Biometric Systems. IEEE Security Privacy (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saks, M.J., Koehler, J.J.: The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science. Science, 892–895 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alonso-Fernandez, F., Fierrez, J., Ramos, D., Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J.: Quality-Based Conditional Processing in Multi-Biometrics: application to Sensor Interoperability. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Srihari, S.N.: Quantitative Measures in Support of Latent Print Comparison: Final Technical Report: NIJ Award Number: 2009-DN-BX-K208, University at Buffalo, SUNY (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ram P. Krish
    • 1
  • Julian Fierrez
    • 1
  • Daniel Ramos
    • 1
  • Raymond Veldhuis
    • 2
  • Ruifang Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Biometric Recognition Group - ATVS, EPSUniv. Autonoma de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Biometric Pattern Recognition, Faculty EEMSUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations