This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
On the Individuality of Fingerprints
August 2002 (vol. 24 no. 8)
pp. 1010-1025

Fingerprint identification is based on two basic premises: 1) persistence: the basic characteristics of fingerprints do not change with time and 2) individuality: the fingerprint is unique to an individual. The validity of the first premise has been established by the anatomy and morphogenesis of friction ridge skin. While the second premise has been generally accepted to be true based on empirical results, the underlying scientific basis of fingerprint individuality has not been formally established. As a result, the validity of fingerprint evidence is now being challenged in several court cases. A scientific basis for establishing fingerprint individuality will not only result in the admissibility of fingerprint identification in the courts of law, but will also establish an upper bound on the performance of an automatic fingerprint verification system. We address the problem of fingerprint individuality by quantifying the amount of information available in minutiae features to establish a correspondence between two fingerprint images. We derive an expression which estimates the probability of a false correspondence between minutiae-based representations from two arbitrary fingerprints belonging to different fingers. For example, the probability that a fingerprint with 36 minutiae points will share 12 minutiae points with another arbitrarily chosen fingerprint with 36 minutiae points is 6.10\times 10^{-8}. These probability estimates are compared with typical fingerprint matcher accuracy results. Our results show that 1) contrary to the popular belief, fingerprint matching is not infallible and leads to some false associations, 2) while there is an overwhelming amount of discriminatory information present in the fingerprints, the strength of the evidence degrades drastically with noise in the sensed fingerprint images, 3) the performance of the state-of-the-art automatic fingerprint matchers is not even close to the theoretical limit, and 4) because automatic fingerprint verification systems based on minutia use only a part of the discriminatory information present in the fingerprints, it may be desirable to explore additional complementary representations of fingerprints for automatic matching.

[1] Advances in Fingerprint Technology, second ed., H.C. Lee and R.E. Gaensslen eds. New York: CRC Press, 2001.
[2] Latent Print Examination, http://www.outex.oulu.fihttp://onin.comfp /, 2002.
[3] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 113 S. Ct. 2786, 1993.
[4] S.N. Srihari, S.-H. Cha, H. Arora, and S. Lee, “Individuality of Handwriting: A Validation Study,” Proc. Sixth Int'l Conf. Document Analysis and Recognition, pp. 106-109, Sept. 2001.
[5] US v Byron Mitchell, Criminal Action No. 96-407, US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. July 1999.
[6] A. Newman, “Judge Rules Fingerprints Cannot Be Called a Match,” New York Times, Jan. 2002.
[7] US Dept. of Justice document SL000386, Online: ID_fpValidation.html, Mar. 2000.
[8] S.A. Cole, Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprint and Criminal Identification. Harvard Univ. Press, May 2001.
[9] J.A. Rice, Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, second ed., Duxbury Press, 1995.
[10] A.K. Jain, L. Hong, S. Pankanti, and R. Bolle, “An Identity Authentication System Using Fingerprints,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 1365-1388, 1997.
[11] Federal Bureau of, 2002.
[12] A.K. Jain and S. Pankanti, “Biometrics Systems: Anatomy of Performance,” IEICE Trans. Fundamentals, special issue on Biometrics, vol. E84-D, no. 7, pp. 788-799, 2001.
[13] D.A. Stoney and J.I. Thornton, “A Critical Analysis of Quantitative Fingerprint Individuality Models” J. Forensic Sciences, vol 31, no. 4, pp. 1187-1216, Oct. 1986.
[14] J. Osterburg, T. Parthasarathy, T.E.S. Raghavan, and S. L. Sclove, “Development of a Mathematical Formula for the Calculation of Fingerprint Probabilities Based on Individual Characteristics,” J. Am. Statistical Assoc., vol 72, no. 360, pp. 772-778, 1977.
[15] A.R. Roddy and J.D. Stosz, “Fingerprint Features—Statistical Analysis and System Performance Estimates” Proc. IEEE, vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 1390-1421, 1997.
[16] F. Galton, Finger Prints. London: McMillan, 1892.
[17] T. Roxburgh, “On Evidential Value of Fingerprints,” Sankhya: Indian J. Statistics, vol. 1, pp. 189-214, 1933.
[18] K. Pearson, The Life and Letters of Francis Galton, vol vol IIIA.Cambridge UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1930.
[19] C. Kingston, “Probabilistic Analysis of Partial Fingerprint Patterns,” PhD thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1964.
[20] E.R. Henry, Classification and Uses of Fingerprints. pp. 54-58, London: Routledge, 1900.
[21] V. Balthazard, “De lìdentification par les Empreintes Ditalis,” Comptes Rendus, des Academies des Sciences, vol. 1862, no. 152, 1911.
[22] B. Wentworth and H.H. Wilder, Personal Identification. Boston: R.G. Badger, 1918.
[23] H. Cummins and C. Midlo, Fingerprints, Palms and Soles. Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1943.
[24] S.R. Gupta, “Statistical Survey of Ridge Characteristics,” Int'l Criminal Police Rev., vol. 218, no. 130, 1968.
[25] L. Amy, “Recherches sur L'identification des Traces Papillaries,” Annales de Medecine Legale, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 96-101, 1948.
[26] C. Champod and P.A. Margot, “Computer Assisted Analysis of Minutiae Occurrences on Fingerprints,” Proc. Int'l Symp. Fingerprint Detection and Identification, J. Almog and E. Spinger, eds., pp. 305, 1996.
[27] S.L. Sclove, “The Occurrence of Fingerprint Characteristics as a Two Dimensional Process,” J. Am. Statistical Assoc., vol. 74, no. 367, pp. 588-595, 1979.
[28] D.A. Stoney, “A Quantitative Assessment of Fingerprint Individuality,” Ph. D. thesis, Univ. of California, Davis, 1985.
[29] M. Trauring, “Automatic Comparison of Finger-Ridge Patterns,” Nature, pp. 938-940, 1963.
[30] S.B. Meagher, B. Buldowle AND D. Ziesig, “50K Fingerprint Comparison Test,”, USA vs. Byron Mitchell, US District Court Eastern District of Philadelphia. Government Exhibits 6-8 and 6-9 in Daubert Hearing before Judge J. Curtis Joyner, July 1999.
[31] M.R. Stiles, “Goverment's Post-Daubert Hearing Memorandum,” US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, USA vs. Mitchell, Criminal case No. 96-00407, 704postd.htm, 2000.
[32] J.L. Wayman, “Daubert Hearing on Fingerprinting: When Bad Science Leads to Good Law: The Disturbing Irony of the Daubert Hearing in the Case of US v Byron C. Mitchell,” , 2002.
[33] J. Daugman, “Recognizing Persons by Their Iris Patterns,” Biometrics: Personal Identification in Networked Society, A.K. Jain, R. Bolle, and S. Pankanti, eds., Kluwer Academic, 1999.
[34] D.A. Stoney, “Distribution of Epidermal Ridge Minutiae,” Am. J. Physical Anthropology, vol. 77, pp. 367-376, 1988.
[35] Identix Incorporated,, 2002.
[36] Digital Biometrics, Inc., now Visionics Corporation,, 2002.
[37] Veridicom Inc.,, 2002.
[38] D. Maio, D. Maltoni, R. Cappelli, J.L. Wayman, and A.K. Jain, “FVC2000:Fingerprint Verification Competition,” Proc. 15th IAPR Int'l Conf. Pattern Recognition, Sept. 2000. http://bias.csr.unibo.itfvc2000/.
[39] A.K. Jain, S. Prabhakar, L. Hong, and S. Pankanti, “Filterbank-Based Fingerprint Matching,” IEEE Trans. Image Processing, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 846-859, May 2000.
[40] A.K. Jain, S. Prabhakar, and S. Pankanti, “Twin Test: On Discriminability of Fingerprints,” Proc. Third Int'l Conf. Audio- and Video-Based Person Authentication, pp. 211-216, June 2001.

Index Terms:
Fingerprints, individuality, identification, minutiae, probability of correspondence, biometric authentication.
Sharath Pankanti, Salil Prabhakar, Anil K. Jain, "On the Individuality of Fingerprints," IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1010-1025, Aug. 2002, doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2002.1023799
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.