A Spectral Analyt

Imag

ic Met

ge Sam

thod fo

ple Ra

NIS

or Fing

ate Est

Joh

Shahr

John D.

Micha

STIR 796

gerprin

timatio

n M. Libe

ram Oran

. Grantha

ael D. Gar

68

nt

on

ert

ndi

am

rris
  

A Spectral A

Pa

nalyt

Imag

trick D. Gallagher,

tic Met

ge Sam

Info

Under Secretary

thod fo

mple Ra

Infor

ormation T

National

of Commerce for S

NISTI

or Fing

ate Est

Jo

Shah

John D

Mich

rmation Ac

Technology

Febr

U.S. Departm

Pen

Institute of Stand

Standards and Tec

IR 796

gerprin

imatio

hn M. Libe

hram Oran

D. Grantha

hael D. Gar

ccess Divisi

y Laborato

ruary 201

ment of Comme

nny Pritzker, Secre

dards and Techno

chnology and Dire

68

nt

on

ert

ndi

am

rris

ion

ory

14

erce

etary

logy

ector
ii

Table of Contents 

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

2. INVESTIGATIVE GOALS .............................................................................. 2

3. METHOD ..................................................................................................... 2

3.1. IMAGE DATA ......................................................................................................................... 2 

3.1.1. Model Development ..................................................................................................................... 2 

3.1.2. Model Testing ............................................................................................................................... 2 

3.2. SIVV PROCESSING ............................................................................................................... 3 

3.3. PREDICTIVE REGRESSION MODEL ................................................................................................ 6 

3.4. UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 9 

3.5. PREDICTION RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 11 

4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ......................................................................... 13

5. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 14

6. REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 15

List of Tables 

Table 1 Model parameter values and uncertainties ........................................................................................... 9

Table 2 Expanded Uncertainty for sample rates predicted by SIVV frequency. ............................................. 10

List of Figures 

Figure 1 ‐ Example of 10‐print Card Utilized in this Study with Finger Numbers Annotated ........................... 3 

Figure 2 ‐ Fingerprint image digitized at 1000 ppi (995 x 1090 pixels). ............................................................. 4 

Figure 3 ‐ Fingerprint image from fig. 2 resampled at 500 ppi (498 x 545 pixels) using bicubic 

interpolation. The spectral features are shifted by factor of 2 in frequency. ........................................ 5 

Figure 4 ‐ Peak Frequency of Strongest Peak as Detected by SIVV (f1) vs. Image Sample Rate (sr) .............. 6 

Figure 5 Fitted model predictions plotted over observed data. Frequency measurements are shown in 

relation to ground truth sample rates. ..................................................................................................... 7 

Figure 6 Weighted residuals (observed– predicted frequency) ....................................................................... 8 

Figure 7 Illustration of prediction of sample rate using the model with ±U shown as a red bar on the 

abscissa. The frequency measurements are plotted against the ground truth sample rates. ............ 11 

Figure 8 Prediction accuracy within specified error thresholds SD27A cardscan, N= 24704 ........................ 12 

Figure 9 Prediction accuracy within specified error thresholds LAC livescan, N= 23198 ............................... 13 
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to give special thanks to the following individuals and organizations for their support of

this work:

Federal Bureau of Investigation for all their support  

T.J. Smith and the LA County Sheriff’s Department  

William F. Guthrie in the Statistical Engineering Division at NIST‐ITL

DISCLAIMER

Specific hardware and software products identified in this report were used in order to perform

evaluations. In no case does identification of any commercial product imply endorsement by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the products and equipment identified are

necessarily the best available for the purpose.

   
iv

Abstract 

This study examines the use of the NIST Spectral Image Validation and Verification (SIVV) metric for the

application of detecting the sample rate of a given fingerprint digital image.  SIVV operates by reducing an

input image to a 1‐dimensional power spectrum that makes explicit the characteristic ridge structure of the

fingerprint that on a global basis differentiates it from most other images. The magnitude of the distinctive

spectral feature, which is related directly to the distinctness of the level 1 ridge detail, provides a primary

diagnostic indicator of the presence of a fingerprint image.    The location of the detected peak

corresponding to the level 1 ridge detail can be used as an estimator of the original sampling frequency of

that image given the behavior of this peak at known sampling frequencies a priori versus the calculated

shift of this peak on an image of unknown sampling rate. A statistical model is fit to frequency

measurements of a sample of images scanned at various sample rates from 10‐print fingerprint cards such

that the model parameters can be applied to SIVV frequency values of a digital fingerprint of unknown

sample rate to estimate the sample rate. Uncertainty analysis is used to compute 95 % confidence intervals

for predictions of sample rate from frequency. The model is tested against sets of cardscan and livescan

images.

Keywords: fingerprint; sample rate estimation; SIVV; spectral analysis; Spectral Image Validation and

Verification
1

1. Introduction 

Fingerprint matching or verification in a contemporary sense involves several key steps that range from

acquiring a digital representation of a fingerprint image from a finger (capture phase), processing of that

digital fingerprint image into a vectorized representation that is suitable for comparison purposes

(characterization), and then ultimately comparing that vectorized representation to other candidate

vectorized representations (matching).   Characterization of a fingerprint image into a representation that

is suitable for matching typically involves the detection of salient features of interest in the fingerprint

image, while comparison of candidate match pairs establishes constellations of salient features that the

pair of candidates have in common with the relative distance in vector spaces as an indicator of the

similarity for the candidate pair.   The process of matching is dependent on the relative spatial location of

the salient features, therefore as a pre‐requisite, a common spatial sampling rate is needed for candidate

pairs of features to be compared accurately and effectively.    A common sampling rate is typically

established by stakeholders of a system through various standards such as the American National

Standard for Information Systems / National Institute of Standards and Technology (ANSI/NIST) standard

[1] and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Electronic Biometric Transmission Specification (FBI EBTS)

standard [2] which currently dictate either 500 ppi1 (19.7 pixels per millimeter) or 1000 ppi (39.4 pixels per

millimeter) as the fingerprint spatial sampling rate2.  While standards and system service agreements can

provide strict guidelines on sampling rate accuracy and tolerances in the capture phase, such agreements

and standards may not be able to guarantee the on‐going adherence to the these guidelines. In addition,

random variability in the sampling rate of images, arising from a variety of sources, including unforeseen

system faults, may ultimately result in degradation of matching performance.

In 2009, NIST in collaboration with the FBI developed the Spectral Image Validation and Verification (SIVV)

utility.  SIVV operates by reducing an input image to a 1‐dimensional power spectrum that makes explicit  

the characteristic ridge structure of the fingerprint that on a global basis differentiates it from most other

images. The magnitude of the distinctive spectral feature, related directly to the distinctness of the level 1

ridge flow, provides a primary diagnostic indicator of the presence of a fingerprint image as documented

in NISTIR‐7599 [3].   The frequency of the spectral feature also provides a novel secondary classification

metric, which on a coarse level, indicates the sample rate of the fingerprint image.  The study outlined here

examines the spectral features extracted by SIVV and looks at the effectiveness of using this spectral

footprint from a fingerprint to establish the original sample rate of the fingerprint which can be used to

detect sampling rate anomalies as well as take mitigating action in fingerprint comparison.

                                                                    

1 Resolution values for friction ridge imagery are specified in pixels per inch (ppi) throughout this document.  This is

based on widely used specification guidelines for such imagery and is accepted as common nomenclature within

the industry. SI units for these will be presented only once.

2 Other terms  include image resolution, spatial resolution, and pixel spacing.
2

2. Investigative Goals 

This study attempts to explore and validate application of the NIST SIVV metric for estimation of

fingerprint image sample rate. Specific objectives include:

1. Development of a predictive statistical model by which the spatial sampling rate from a

fingerprint image of unknown spatial characteristics may be predicted using the NIST SIVV

algorithm.

2. Application of the predictive statistical model to images not included in development of the

model to test the predictive performance of the model for a range of differences between actual

and predicted sample rates.  

3. Method 

3.1. Image Data 

3.1.1. Model Development 

A dataset was constructed by sampling  four standard FBI 10‐print fingerprint cards. with twelve images

per card. Prints #1 to #10 are rolled impressions of right and left hands. Prints #11 and #12 are flat

impressions of the right and left thumbs (see Figure 1). The "slap‐four" impressions also shown in Figure 1

were not used. Each full card was scanned at multiple sample rates ranging from 100 ppi to 2400 ppi at

increments of 50 ppi, yielding 47 different sample rates.  Fingerprint cards were scanned using an Epson

49903 flatbed scanner. Individual fingerprint images were segmented from the full card scans using

identical bounding coordinates. Only the rolled impressions of the 10 fingers, #1 through #10, and the flat

impressions of both thumbs, #11 and #12 were included. This yielded a suite of 2256 fingerprint images for

use in developing a model.

3.1.2. Model Testing 

This dataset is a subset of fingerprint impressions taken from each of the fingerprint cards digitized to

form NIST Special Database SD274 [11].  This subset consisted of 2484 images scanned from standard FBI

10‐print cards at 2000 ppi. These images consisted of 12 fingerprint impressions, as described above, for

each of 207 subjects.  

                                                                    

3 An Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Appendix F [2] certified flatbed scanner

4 The SD27 dataset is described in [11]. We actually used images designated SD27A, a rescanning of the original 10‐print

cards at 500 ppi, 1000 ppi, and 2000 ppi.
In the a

large te

describe

with ant

1600 pp

dataset

To exam

County,

(Append

these w

image a

100 ppi.

3.2.

The NIS

automat

proved

image c

classifie

For the

Image S

correspo

to simpl

Figure 1 ‐

bsence of a la

est dataset by

ed above. Thu

ti‐aliasing (low

i , 140o ppi, 12

consisting of

mine the mod

CA, referred

dix F certified

were acquired

t additional sa

As with the S

SIVV Proce

T Spectral ima

tically identify

useful as an i

ompression st

r to differentia

present study

Software (NBI

onds to the ce

ly as “peak fre

Example of 10‐

arge number

y resampling f

us each of the

w‐pass) filterin

200 ppi, 1000 p

24 770 fingerp

del against live

to as LAC. The

). Fingerprints

at 1000 ppi, w

ample rates, 9

D27A dataset,

essing 

age Validation

y non‐fingerpr

image fidelity

tudies [5][6][7

ate fingerprint

y, we employ t

S) [4]. Among

enter frequen

equency”). Pri

print Card Utiliz

of fingerprint

fingerprint im

2000 ppi sou

ng to simulate

ppi, 800 ppi, 6

print images.

escan fingerp

ese were acqu

s #1 to #10 are

we followed th

900 ppi, 800 p

only impressi

/Verification (

int images or

metric where

7][8][9][10]. In

t image sampl

he SIVV utility

g the various

cy of the stro

ior experience

3

zed in this Stud

s scanned at

ages scanned

urce images is

acquisition at

00 ppi, 400 pp

rints, we used

uired using a l

e rolled and #

he procedure

pi, 700 ppi, 60

ions #1 to #12 w

SIVV) utility [3

poor quality f

e it was empl

n [3], Libert, e

le rates, partic

y as implement

outputs of th

ngest peak in

e with the SIVV

dy with Finger N

a variety of sa

d at 2000 ppi

resized via bi

t the additiona

pi, and 200 pp

d a set of im

livescan devic

#11 and #12 are

described abo

00 ppi, 500 pp

were used.

3][4] was deve

fingerprint im

oyed in a num

et. al. we indic

cularly 500 ppi

ted in the rele

e SIVV algorit

the measured

V tool has sho

 Numbers Annot

ample rates, w

from the fin

icubic interpo

al lower samp

pi. This proced

ages provided

ce, the Identix

e flat prints of

ove to genera

pi, 400 ppi, 30

eloped origina

ages in large d

mber of JPEG

cated potentia

i and 1000 ppi

ease 4.2.0 of th

thm, we utilize

d spectrum (h

own that this p

tated 

we constructe

gerprint cards

lation resamp

ple rates 1800

dure yielded a

d by Los Ang

x TouchPrint 5

f the thumbs.

te copies of e

0 pi, 200 ppi,

ally as a mean

databases. It a

2000 fingerp

al use as a coa

.

he NIST Biome

e the output t

hereafter refer

peak correspo

ed a

s as

pling

ppi,

test

eles

800

  As

each

and

s to

also

print

arse

etric

that

rred

onds
4

to the level 1 ridge structure of a fingerprint which is the dominant frequency element in a typical

fingerprint image. It was recognized in [3] that the frequency position of this peak shifts toward the high

frequency as the sample rate is reduced. We note that this effect is actually an artifact of the scaling

applied to the frequency spectrum by the SIVV algorithm rather than an actual measure of the ridge

frequency5.    Inspection of Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrates the displacement of the dominant peak as

sample rate is reduced from 1000 ppi to 500 ppi for the source image. Note also the broadening of the

peak at the lower sample rate.

Due to normal anthropometric variance in the human finger ridge structure such frequency values should

not be interpreted literally as ridge frequency of the fingerprint image as there is no such fixed frequency

for the level 1 ridge structure of a human finger.  It is hypothesized here that the systematic shift in the

expected peak position could be used as an indicator or estimator of the sample rate of a given fingerprint

image if a functional relationship between peak frequency and sampling rate could be established.

Figure 2 ‐ Fingerprint image digitized at 1000 ppi (995 x 1090 pixels). 

                                                                    

5 Expressed in cycles/pixel, the frequencies zero to 0.5 cycles/pixel are scaled to 1⁄2 of the smallest dimension of the 2D

power spectrum. The effect is to stretch out the spectrum of an image of lower sample rate relative to one of

higher sample rate, pushing the location of the peak corresponding to the fingerprint ridge pattern toward the

high frequency.

Input Img.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

 Log Power (db)

 Frequency (cycles/pixel)

 Log Power Spectrum
5

Figure 3 ‐ Fingerprint image from fig. 2 resampled at 500 ppi (498 x 545 pixels) using bicubic interpolation. The 

spectral features are shifted by factor of 2 in frequency. 

Each of the datasets described in section 3.1 were processed with the SIVV utility, recording the center

frequency of the dominant spectral peak for each image. Then the training dataset was used to develop a

regression model with which to predict the sample rate for the images of the test dataset.  

Input Img.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

 Log Power (db)

 Frequency (cycles/pixel)

 Log Power Spectrum
6

3.3. Predictive Regression Model 

Figure 4 below displays a scatter plot of the detected peak frequencies (using SIVV) for each of the test

images (ordinate) against the ground‐truth sample rates of the original digital fingerprint impression.

Figure 4 ‐ Peak Frequency of Strongest Peak as Detected by SIVV (f1) vs. Image Sample Rate (sr) 

Observing this pattern to be of the general form, y = k/x, we chose to model this using a function of the

form

0 1

1 frequency sample rate            

   (1)

where frequency refers to the center frequency of the dominant peak of the SIVV spectrum (in

cycles/pixel) and sample rate (in pixels/inch) to the sampling interval used in acquiring the digital

fingerprint image.

We apply a linear model that uses an least squares algorithm [12][13] implemented in the R software

package [14]. Additional data preparation employed functions developed using MATLAB® [15] software.

Because the variance of frequency values is not uniform across all sample rates, we weight the cases by

variance of frequency determined for each sample rate grouping using a smoothed version of the sample

variances at each sampling rate shown in equation (2).  

500 1000 1500 2000

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

sr

f1
7

    ,

1

var f i k

ii k

w

sr sr      (2)

Where fi and sri are the frequency and sample rate of the i

th measurement pair,  i = 1...N measurements, k =

1...m=47 sample rates, and srk is the kth sample rate.

Figure 5 Fitted model predictions plotted over observed data. Frequency measurements are shown in relation to 

ground truth sample rates. 

Figure 5 shows the fitted values plotted over the observed data. Weighted residuals,

    1 1 w f sr ii o i     ,   plotted as a function of sample rate are shown in Figure 6. The fact that the

residuals are evenly distributed around zero indicates the model fits the data fairly well and that the

chosen weights effectively equalize the variances of the frequencies at different sample rates. Most of the

500 1000 1500 2000

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

(Sample Rate) ppi

(Peak Frequency) (cycles/pixel)
8

remaining structure visible in the residuals is caused by the discretization of the raw data and do not have

a significant effect on the final values and uncertainty intervals for unknown images.

Figure 6 Weighted residuals (observed– predicted frequency) 

The parameters of the model in (1) are found to be β0 =  0.005 991 and β1 = 46.484 416.  

For prediction of sample rate from frequency, we rearrange equation (1) to form the measurement

function

1

0

SampleRate frequency



      (3)

500 1000 1500 2000

-4 -2 0 2 4

(Sample Rate) ppi

Weighted Residuals from Linear Fit
9

Thus, to apply the model to fingerprint images of unknown sample rate, we would divide the slope value6,

β1 = 46.484416, by the measured center (peak) frequency of the dominant peak of the spectrum yielded by

the SIVV utility minus the intercept value,  β0 = 0.005 991.

3.4. Uncertainty Analysis 

The measurement function derived from the linear regression model for the data is then used as the basis

for an uncertainty analysis according to [16][17] utilizing an R library created for the purpose [18]. We refer

to the uncertainty analysis procedure described in [16][17] as the Guidelines for Uncertainty Measurement,

or the GUM. Table 1 lists values and uncertainties on the two model parameters. The expanded uncertainty

(U) is not a single value, but rather depends upon the position of a given prediction along the fit curve of

Figure 5

Table 1 Model parameter values and uncertainties 

Source Value Uncertainty (u)

Intercept (β0) 0.005 991 0.000 136 909

β1 46.484 416 0.180 389 123

On the steeply sloping regions of Figure 5, the value of U is relatively small, whereas the uncertainty

interval broadens in the flatter regions of the curve. Table 2 illustrates this using a sample of SIVV

frequency values, the corresponding predicted sample rate, and the combined expanded uncertainty, U,

computed using the GUM. The implication of Table 2 is that given a SIVV‐measured frequency of a

fingerprint image of unknown sample rate, the interval likely to contain the true sample rate with 95 %

confidence will lie between ±U of the sample rate predicted by the measurement function. Thus, we see

that given a frequency of 0.05 cycles/pixel, we predict a sample rate of 1056 ppi ± 164 ppi. A frequency of

0.10 gives us a sample rate prediction of 494 ppi ± 74 ppi. This latter case is illustrated in Figure 7.

   

                                                                    

6 Note that with sample rate having units of pixels per inch and frequency having units cycles per pixel, β1 has units

cycles per inch and β0 has units of frequency, i.e., cycles per pixel.
10

Table 2 Expanded Uncertainty for sample rates predicted by SIVV frequency.

Frequency Sample Rate U

   

0.02 3318 1488.0

0.03 1936.1 364.9

0.04 1366.8 224.6

0.05 1056.2 164.3

0.06 860.7 130.4

0.07 726.2 108.6

0.08 628.09 93.4

0.09 553.33 82.2

0.1 494.47 73.7

0.11 446.93 66.9

0.12 407.73 61.5

0.13 374.85 57.0

0.14 346.88 53.3

0.15 322.79 50.2

0.16 301.83 47.5

0.17 283.43 45.2

0.18 267.14 43.3

0.19 252.62 41.6

0.2 239.6 40.1

0.21 227.85 38.9

0.22 217.21 37.8

0.23 207.51 36.9

0.24 198.64 36.1

0.25 190.5 35.5

0.26 183 35.0

0.27 176.07 34.7

0.28 169.65 34.5

0.29 163.67 34.4

0.3 158.11 34.5
11

Figure 7 Illustration of prediction of sample rate using the model with ±U shown as a red bar on the abscissa. The 

frequency measurements are plotted against the ground truth sample rates. 

3.5. Prediction Results 

We applied the model to the test fingerprint image dataset described in section 3.1.2. For each of the 2484

images we apply equation (3) to predict a sample rate from the center frequency of the dominant  peak.

We do not expect the central peak frequency values to map precisely to sample rates, but rather to reach

some approximation to the actual sample rate within some tolerance. Hence, we evaluate the accuracy of

our model by measuring the proportion of predicted sample rates that differ from actual sample rates

within each of a series of thresholds. Thus, we compare absolute differences of observed and predicted

sample rates and assign values 1 and o as

1

0

ii k

i

ii k

if O P

if O P







    

   

   (4)

where Oi

, Pi are respectively the ground truth and predicted sample rate of the i

th sample, i = 1...24770, and

τk the kth threshold value, k=0...800. For each of the values, τk, we compute the proportion of predictions

within the threshold limits as

500 1000 1500 2000

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

(Sample Rate) ppi

(Peak Frequency) (cycles/pixel)
12

1

N

i

i

k p N



 

    (5)

where k=0...800 and i = 1...N=24770.

Figure 8 exhibits the proportion of cases in which the absolute difference between actual and predicted

sample rates are less than each threshold from zero to 800.

Figure 8 Prediction accuracy within specified error thresholds SD27A cardscan, N= 24 704 

Thus, applied to a fingerprint image of unknown sample rate from  a population of images similar to the

SD27 images used for testing, the SIVV together with an appropriate regression model should be able to

estimate the sample rate within ± 100 ppi in 64 % of cases, ±200 ppi in 84 % of cases, ± 300 ppi in 93 % of

cases.  

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Threshold (Actual-Predicted)

Proportion Within Threshold Limits
13

Figure 9 Prediction accuracy within specified error thresholds LAC livescan, N= 23 198 

In spite of the fact that the model was developed using cardscan images, the model appears to perform

rather well on the livescan images from this population, finding 95 % of the predictions correct within ±150

of the actual sample rate (see Figure 9). We note that the livescan data contain sample rates only up to

1000 ppi, so in this case the populations used for modeling and testing are definitely not identical. The

main point here, however, is that the model developed using cardscan images may be able to be used

effectively with some populations of livescan images as well, without modification. For populations of

images where the model built on the data used here does not perform adequately as is, it is likely that a

similar model could be fit using the procedures outlined here to obtain improved performance.

4. Discussion of Results 

Clearly while the simple predictive model derived in the foregoing discussion is not capable of determining

the exact image spatial sample rate, it does exhibit utility in classifying the image with an approximate

sample rate. Taken together with the measure of combined expanded uncertainty, U, each predicted

sample rate may be associated with an interval around the prediction within which the true sample rate

should be found with 95 % confidence. In the operational case where the alternative is to guess in trial and

error fashion over a range of possible sample rates and transforming a template multiple times until the

best match is found, reducing the number of sample rate alternatives could be of at least some, if not

substantial, benefit. Using the SIVV‐based model described here might reduce the number of trials to

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Threshold (Actual-Predicted)

Proportion Within Threshold Limits
14

several candidates within the appropriate uncertainty interval of the sample rate predicted by the model.  

Additionally, this model can be an effective trigger for mitigation actions in the event of a systematic

failure of fingerprint image capture and processing pathways.

Use of the model developed here has been demonstrated for a set of card scanned fingerprints and for a

set of fingerprints acquired by a livescan device. Additional models may be required for fingerprints

acquired via other sensors, such as capacitive, or even contactless devices. Additional work is planned for

these modalities.

Note that SIVV processing of the test dataset yielded some failures of the peak‐finding algorithm. In 57 of

24 827 SD27A images, the SIVV failed to find a dominant spectral peak. This amounts to 0.23 % of the test

fingerprints. As a frequency value of zero would result in a singularity condition for the prediction model,

these cases were filtered from the analysis. Various mitigation strategies are being considered to address

these failure cases in future updates of the SIVV utility code and/or the manner in which the fingerprints

are evaluated via the predictive model.  

5. Conclusions 

The NIST SIVV utility reveals a dominant spectral peak related to the ridge pattern of fingerprint images.

The center frequency of this peak is related to the fingerprint image spatial sample rate. A statistical model

may be fitted to SIVV frequency values for fingerprint images digitized over a range of known sample rates

in order to develop a predictor function that when applied to the frequency measurement of fingerprint

images of unknown sample rate, provides an estimate of the unknown sample rate. Uncertainty analysis of

the model via the GUM can provide confidence intervals for predictions of sample rate to further narrow

the band of sample rates to be tried in matching the unknown print against exemplars of known sample

rate. This estimation can yield several mitigation strategies to help maintain effective matcher

performance ranging from initiating corrective strategies at fingerprint capture, implementing corrective

resampling action to the image, or transformation of the vector representation of the fingerprint.
15

6. References 

[1] NIST Special Publication 500‐290: “American National Standard for Information Systems — Data

Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial & Other Biometric Information (ANSI/NIST ITL 1‐2011)”.  

Approved November 9, 2011.

[2] FBI/CJIS, “Electronic Biometric Transmission Specification (EBTS) V. 9.4”, IAFIS‐DOC 01078‐9.4 Draft,

Federal Bureau of Information Criminal Justice Information Services, Clarksburg, WV, August 3, 2012

https://www.fbibiospecs.org/Documents/EBTS_v9.4_Clean_Draft_8.3.2012.pdf. Retrieved 03/11/2013.

[3] Libert, J. M., Orandi, S., Grantham, J.    A 1D Spectral Image Validation/Verification Metric for

Fingerprints (NIST IR 7599), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2009,

http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2009/ir7599.pdf .

[4] NIST Biometric Image Software (NBIS) Version 4.2.0 http://www.nist.gov/itl/iad/ig/nbis.cfm

[5] Orandi, S., Libert, J. M., Grantham, J. D., Ko, K., Wood, S.S., Wu, J., “Effects of JPEG2000 Image

Compression on 1000 ppi Fingerprint Imagery”, NIST Interagency Report 7778, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.  

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=908204. Retrieved 09/01/2012.

[6] Orandi, S., Libert, J. M., Grantham, J. D., Ko, K., Wood, S. S., Wu, J. C., Petersen, L. M., Bandini, B., “An

Exploration of the Operational Ramifications of Lossless Compression of 1000 ppi Fingerprint Imagery”,

NIST Interagency Report 7779, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=911122. Retrieved 03/29/2013.

[7] Orandi, S., Libert, J.M., Grantham, Petersen, L. P., “Effects of JPEG 2000 Lossy Image Compression on

1000 ppi Latent Fingerprint Imagery”, NIST Interagency Report 7780, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=914513. Retrieved

07/31/2013.

[8] Libert, J. M., Orandi, S., and Grantham, J. D., “Comparison of the WSQ and JPEG 2000 Image

Compression Algorithms On 500 ppi Fingerprint Imagery”, NIST Interagency Report 7781, National

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910658. Retrieved 03/29/2013.

[9] Orandi, S., Libert, J.M., Grantham, J.D., Lepley, M., Bandini, B., Ko., K., Petersen, L. P., Wood, S. S., and

Harvey, S.G., “Examination of Downsampling Strategies for Converting 1000 ppi Imagery to 500 ppi”, NIST

Interagency Report 7339, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.   

http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2013/NIST.IR.7839.pdf. Retrieved 03/11/2013.

[10] Libert, J. M., Orandi, S., Grantham, J.D., “Effects of Decomposition Levels and Quality Layers with JPEG

2000 Compression of 1000 ppi  Fingerprint Images”, NIST Interagency Report 7939, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2013/NIST.IR.7939.pdf.  

Retrieved 11/18/2013.

[11] Garris, M. D. and McCabe, R. M.    NIST Special Database 27: Fingerprint Minutiae from Latent and

Matching Tenprint Images, NIST Technical Report NISTIR 6534 & CD‐ROM, June 2000.

[12] Seber, G. A. F., and C. J. Wild. Nonlinear Regression, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley‐Interscience, 1989.

[13] Wilkinson, G. N. and Rogers, C. E. (1973) Symbolic descriptions of factorial models for analysis of

variance. Applied Statistics, 22, 392–9.

[14] R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.   URL http://www.R‐project.org/.
16

[15] MATLAB Version: 8.1.0.604 (R2013a). Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc., 2010.

[16] Barry N. Taylor and Chris E. Kuyatt (1994). Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of

NIST Measurement Results. NIST Technical Note 1297.

[17] Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement JCGM

100:2008 (GUM 1995 with minor corrections)

[18] Stephen L R Ellison. (2014). metRology: Support for metrological applications. R package version 0.9‐

16.1.   http://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=metRology

[19] Tukey, J. W.  Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison‐Wesley, Reading. 1977.

[20]Galton, F. (2005). Finger prints. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1892)