Skip to main content

On Latent Fingerprint Image Quality

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Forensics (IWCF 2012, IWCF 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNIP,volume 8915))

Abstract

Latent fingerprints which are lifted from surfaces of objects at crime scenes play a very important role in identifying suspects in the crime scene investigations. Due to poor quality of latent fingerprints, automatic processing of latents can be extremely challenging. For this reason, latent examiners need to be involved in latent identification. To expedite the latent identification and alleviate subjectivity and inconsistency in latent examiners’ feature markups and decisions, there is a need to develop latent fingerprint identification systems that can operate in the “lights-out” mode. One of the most important steps in “lights-out” systems is to determine the quality of a given latent to predict the probability that the latent can be identified in a fully automatic manner. In this paper, we (i) propose a definition of latent value determination as a way of establishing the quality of latents based on a specific matcher’s identification performance, (ii) define a set of features based on ridge clarity and minutiae and evaluate them based on their capability to determine if a latent is of value for individualization or not, and (iii) propose a latent fingerprint image quality (LFIQ) that can be useful to reject the latents which cannot be successfully identified in the “lights-out” mode. Experimental results show that the most salient latent features include the average ridge clarity and the number of minutiae. The proposed latent quality measure improves the rank-100 identification rate from 69 % to 86 % by rejecting 50 % of latents deemed as poor quality. In addition, the rank-100 identification is 80 % when rejecting 80 % of the latents in the databases assessed as ‘NFIQ = 5’; however, the same identification rate can be achieved by rejecting only 21 % of the latents with low LFIQ.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Individualization is the decision that a latent examiner makes on a pair of latent and a reference print indicating that the pair originates from the same finger based on a sufficient agreement between the two ridge patterns. Exclusion, on the other hand, is the decision where an examiner concludes that the pair did not originate from the same finger based on a sufficient disagreement between the two ridge patterns. An inconclusive decision is made when an examiner cannot make a decision of either individualization or exclusion due to insufficient ridge details or small corresponding area between latent and reference print [5].

  2. 2.

    The best performing matcher for latent search in the ELFT-EFS achieved 63.4 % rank-1 identification rate in the “lights-out” identification mode [13].

  3. 3.

    The AFIS used in this study is not a state-of-the-art latent-to-reference print matcher, but instead a state-of-the-art AFIS for reference fingerprint matching. Currently, no AFIS for latent matching is available to us.

  4. 4.

    Based on the latent matching performance evaluation with the fingerprint matchers available to us, the fusion of the two matchers described in this paper showed the best performance to simulate the performance of a state-of-the-art AFIS for latents.

  5. 5.

    NFIQ assigns one of five discrete quality levels ranging from 1 to 5 to a reference print; ‘1’ refers to the highest quality, and ‘5’ indicates the lowest quality. Note that NFIQ was not designed for latent fingerprint quality assessment.

References

  1. Maltoni, D., Maio, D., Jain, A.K., Prabhakar, S.: Handbook of Fingerprint Recognition, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/iafis/iafis

  3. Wilson, C., et al.: Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation 2003: Summary of Results and Analysis Report. NISTIR 7123 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ashbaugh, D.R.: Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Ridgeology. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Science Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST): Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions (Latent/Tenprint) (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Office of the Inspector General, Oversight and Review Division: A Review of the FBI’s Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Office of the Inspector General, Oversight and Review Division: A Review of the FBI’s Progress in Responding to the Recommendations in the Office of the Inspector General Report on the Fingerprint Misidentification in the Brandon Mayfield Case (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Research Council: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and National Institute of Justice (NIJ): Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hicklin, R.A., et al.: Latent fingerprint quality: a survey of examiners. J. Forensic Identif. 61(4), 385–419 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ulery, B.T., Hicklin, R.A., Buscaglia, J., Roberts, M.A.: Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108(19), 7733–7738 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ulery, B.T., Hicklin, R.A., Buscaglia, J., Roberts, M.A.: Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLoS ONE 7(3), e32800 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Indovina, M., Dvornychenko, V., Hicklin, R.A., Kiebuzinski, G.I.: Evaluation of Latent Fingerprint Technologies: Extended Feature Sets [Evaluation #2]. NISTIR 7859 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. NIST Special Database 27: Fingerprint Minutiae from Latent and Matching Tenprint Images. www.nist.gov/srd/nistsd27.htm

  15. West Virginia University Latent Fingerprint Database: http://www.csee.wvu.edu/ ross/

  16. Indovina, M., Dvornychenko, V., Tabassi, E., Quinn, G., Grother, P., Meagher, S., Garris, M.: ELFT Phase II - An Evaluation of Automated Latent Fingerprint Identification Technologies. NISTIR 7577 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jain, A.K., Feng, J.: Latent fingerprint matching. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 33(1), 88–100 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yoshida, A., Hara, M.: Fingerprint image quality metrics that guarantees matching accuracy. In: Biometric Quality Workshop (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. NIST: Latent Print AFIS Interoperability Working Group. www.nist.gov/oles/afis_interoperability.cfm

  20. Fronthaler, H., Kollreider, K., Bigun, J.: Local features for enhancement and minutiae extraction in fingerprints. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 17(3), 354–363 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Jain, A.K., Feng, J.: Latent palmprint matching. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 31(6), 1032–1047 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Paulino, A.A., Feng, J., Jain, A.K.: Latent fingerprint matching using descriptor-based hough transform. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 8(1), 31–45 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dvornychenko, V.N.: Evaluation of fusion methods for latent fingerprint matchers. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Biometrics (ICB), pp. 182–188 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., Stone, C.: Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (1984)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. NIST Special Database 14: NIST Mated Fingerprint Card Pairs 2 (MFCP2). http://www.nist.gov/srd/nistsd14.cfm

  26. Tabassi, E., Wilson, C., Watson, C.: Fingerprint Image Quality. NISTIR 7151 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yoon, S., Cao, K., Liu, E., Jain, A.K.: LFIQ: Latent fingerprint image quality. In: Proceedings of 6th Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS) (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Austin Hicklin of Noblis for providing us the value determination by examiners of latents in NIST SD27. This research was partially supported by a grant from the NSF Center of Identification Technology Research (CITeR). This paper was presented at the International Workshop on Computational Forensics, Tsukuba, Japan, November 11, 2012. Readers who are interested in the improved algorithm for assessing latent fingerprint quality are directed to [27].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anil K. Jain .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Yoon, S., Liu, E., Jain, A.K. (2015). On Latent Fingerprint Image Quality. In: Garain, U., Shafait, F. (eds) Computational Forensics. IWCF IWCF 2012 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8915. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20125-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20125-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20124-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20125-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics