Evaluating reporting practices in fingerprint comparisons using information theory: five response categories are better than three

Abstract Forensic fingerprint examiners communicate the results of their comparisons using a categorical decision scale that traditionally has only two or three categories. Newer scales with five categories have been proposed and, in some cases, adopted. In the present work, we model existing fingerprint comparison data using an approach that characterizes the amount of information provided by examiner decisions when they use a given scale. We demonstrate that the five-response-category scale produces an overall higher information gain, maintains high information gain even for risk-averse examiners, is more tolerant of non-optimal decision thresholds, and tends to encourage examiner decision thresholds that are very close to optimal, especially the critical decision threshold that determines an identification response. We further show that all of these advantages of the five-response-category scale are robust against variations in the base rates of a mated pair. In addition, there appear to be relatively few negative aspects of this scale, and larger scales are unlikely to produce marked improvements over five categories. The current work is an endorsement of efforts to shift to five-response-category decision scales in the friction ridge discipline.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Law Probability and Risk
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgaf004
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Biometric Identification and Security
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.49
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating reporting practices in fingerprint comparisons using information theory: five response categories are better than three

Meredith Coon, Jeffrey J. Starns, Tom Busey, Andrew L. Cohen et al.
1 citations
Law Probability and Risk
Biometric Identification and Security
1.49
article

Evaluating reporting practices in fingerprint comparisons using information theory: five response categories are better than three

Meredith Coon, Jeffrey J. Starns, Tom Busey, Andrew L. Cohen, Nada Aggadi
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Forensic fingerprint examiners communicate the results of their comparisons using a categorical decision scale that traditionally has only two or three categories. Newer scales with five categories have been proposed and, in some cases, adopted. In the present work, we model existing fingerprint comparison data using an approach that characterizes the amount of information provided by examiner decisions when they use a given scale. We demonstrate that the five-response-category scale produces an overall higher information gain, maintains high information gain even for risk-averse examiners, is more tolerant of non-optimal decision thresholds, and tends to encourage examiner decision thresholds that are very close to optimal, especially the critical decision threshold that determines an identification response. We further show that all of these advantages of the five-response-category scale are robust against variations in the base rates of a mated pair. In addition, there appear to be relatively few negative aspects of this scale, and larger scales are unlikely to produce marked improvements over five categories. The current work is an endorsement of efforts to shift to five-response-category decision scales in the friction ridge discipline.

Law Probability and RiskVol. 24(1)
University of Massachusetts Amherst (US), Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Biometric Identification and Security
1.49
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.