On Analyzing of Fingerprint Direct-Access Strategies

G. Indrawan1, S. Akbar2, B. Sitohang3

123

Data & Software Engineering Research Division - School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics
Bandung Institute of Technology
Bandung, Indonesia
1
gindrawan@live.com, 2saiful@informatika.org, 3benhard@stei.itb.ac.id

Abstract This paper analyzed several aspect of publicly

available fingerprint direct-access strategies over three public
data sets, including their advantages and drawbacks, related
works, and accuracy performance comparison on the graph of
error rate and penetration rate. On recent research, smaller
penetration rate at certain error rate (smaller area under curve)
could be obtained by certain strategy. Penetration rate equal to
5% could be produced at error rate equal to 4%, 10%, and 1%
on FVC2000 DB2A, FVC2000 DB3A, and FVC2002 DB1A,
respectively. Through this analysis, hopely it could be used as a
foundation for better future developments over new strategies or
future improvements over existing strategies in area of
fingerprint identification, especially to obtain more accurate
result with smaller area under curve and achieved with faster
search time.
Keywords direct-access; error rate; fingerprint; penetration
rate

I.

INTRODUCTION

Recent performance comparison in area of fingerprint

direct-access strategy [1], leaving further question on how far
its accuracy and efficiency performance can be improved. In
general, direct-access strategy itself means any searching
strategy to output a candidate list (CL) without performing
one-to-one matching between a query and candidates in the
database. A CL from a query will have a list of certain Error
Rate (ER) at certain Penetration Rate (PR). The ER is the
average percentage of searched queries that are not found, and
the PR is the portion of the database to be searched on the
average. The accuracy performance is then measured by the
graph of the trade-off between ER and PR that shows at certain
ER how low PR can be achieved. The efficiency performance
was indicated by its search speed, memory usage and
scalability (ability to search on larger database without
accuracy degradation).
Based on above question, analysis was conducted on
several publicly available fingerprint direct-access strategies
over three public data sets, with motivation that this analysis
could be used as a foundation for better future developments
over new strategies or future improvements over existing
strategies. An analysis was focused on accuracy performance
since systematic comparison can be conducted independently
from hardware platform.
Several proposed fingerprint direct-access strategies have
been roughly classified by Cappeli [1], i.e. 1) using global
features such as global ridge-line frequency (e.g., [2]); 2) local

features such as local ridge-line frequency (e.g., [1], [3]), local

ridge-line orientations (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), and local
features from the orientation image (e.g., [7], [8]); 3) minutiae
features such as geometric features from minutiae points and
perform searching through hashing strategy: triplets (e.g., [9],
[10], [11], [4]), and local-star (e.g., [12], [13]); 4) other features
such as FingerCode (e.g., [4]), ridge curvature (e.g., [14]), and
SIFT features (e.g., [15]), and matching scores to construct
index keys (e.g., [16], [17]). So, it is quite challenging to do
comparison analysis for these various strategies on this area.
The rest of this paper was organized as follows. Section 2
compares pros and cons of several direct-access strategies
above. Section 3 analyses experiments on accuracy result over
three public data sets (several strategies above have no results
using those data sets). Finally, Section 4 draws the conclusion.
II.

DIRECT ACCESS STRATEGIES

Table I shows three publicly available data sets and their

image samples were shown by Fig. 1. Pros and cons of several
direct-access strategies, including aspect of novelty, features
extraction, indexing and retrieval mechanism were described
hereafter.
TABLE I.

THREE PUBLIC DATA SETS FOR ACCURACY COMPARISON.

No
1

Data Set
FVC2000
DB2A
[18]

Sensor Type
Low-Cost
Capacitive
Sensor

Pixels
256 x
364

FVC2000
DB3A
[18]
FVC2002
DB1A
[19]

Optical
Sensor

448 x
478

Optical
Sensor

388 x
374

Direct Access Strategies

De Boer at al. (2001) [4]
Jiang et al. (2006) [2]
Liang et al. (2006) [11]
Capelli (2011) [1]
Indrawan et al. (2014) [13]
Jiang et al. (2006) [2]
Capelli (2011) [1]
Indrawan et al. (2014) [13]
Liang et al. (2007) [20]
Shuai et al. (2008) [15]
Capelli (2011) [1]
Indrawan et al. (2014) [13]

Figure 1. From left to right: sample

fingerprints from FVC2000 DB2A,
FVC2000 DB3A, and FVC2002
DB1. For most of strategies, first
impressions were used for index
creation (top row), and the others
(bottom row) were used for queries.
Noted, images are not in their actual
size but they are in their scale
difference.

A. De Boer et al. (2001) [4]

The advantages of the proposed strategy start from its
novelty 1 on indexing by combining multiple features of
Directional Field (DF), FingerCode, and minutiae triplets. The
highest rank combination of multiple features results in a
considerably better performance than the schemes that are
based on the individual features. High-resolution segmentation
methods by Bazen et al. (2001) [21] was used that possibly can
eliminate a DF that is estimated from a bad-quality fingerprint
image. An alternative registration point also was defined for an
arch type fingerprint that does not contain any singular points
for DF estimation.
The drawbacks of this strategy start from its dependency on
singular point for registration points used in DF and
FingerCode algorithm, with no anticipation for wrong or nonexisting detection (on experiment, need manual correction for
wrong detection or manual rejection for non-existing
detection). Running on a 450 MHz Intel Pentium II CPU,
FingerCode extraction time takes about 40 seconds, longer than
DF feature vector extraction time, which takes about 15
seconds. Searching 2.5% of database, only 77% of queries were
found by the minutiae triplets algorithm which was much
worse than the results by Bhanu et al. (2001) [22] where 100%
of queries is found in the top 10 of a database of 400 fingers.
This discrepancy might be because of some hidden
implementation aspects by Bhanu et al. (2001) [22]. Adding
minutiae triplets to any combination of features does not
improve the performance significantly. This could be explained
by the previous cause. Moreover, this strategy utilized no
multithreaded algorithm for faster implementation which was
indicated by CPU type mentioned previously.
Related works to unveil sub methods used by this strategy
were based on minutiae-triplets based indexing [9], [22]; DF as
the local orientation of the ridge-valley structures [23], [24];
singular points as the discontinuities in the DF [24], [25];
segmentation methods possibly to eliminate a DF from a badquality image [21]; and FingerCode extraction [26], [27].
B. Jiang et al. (2006) [2]
The advantages of the proposed strategy start from its
novelty on indexing by combining multiple features of
orientation field (main retrieval feature) and dominant ridge
distance (auxiliary retrieval feature). No minutiae needed for
indexing since it was extracted through relatively long process
that could bring out spurious features and/or eliminate genuine
features. The dominant ridge distance is more robust to the
noise than the simple average ridge distance of a fingerprint.
Also, a new distance measure better quantifies the similarity
evaluation between two orientation fields than the conventional
Euclidean and Manhattan measures. Moreover, a variable
search tolerance was introduced for more efficient retrieval.
Database clustering mechanism was also introduced with a few
clusters comparation on retrieval. Experiments show that the
clustering-based approach of this strategy achieves better
retrieval results than various exclusive classification methods.
1

Authors believe that novelty is part of the advantage for knowledge

development.

The drawbacks of this strategy start from its accuracy and

robustness that was depended on the reference point (its
location and its direction) to produce a feature vector invariant
to the translation and rotation. In fact, a substantial portion of
the retrieval errors is caused by the falsely or inconsistently
detected reference point due to poor fingerprint quality (see
next Section III Point 7). Moreover, no notice of multithreaded
algorithm utilization by this strategy.
Related works to unveil sub methods used by this strategy
were based on the gradient-based estimation method for the
Orientation Field (OF) computation [28], [29], [24];
measurement of an anisotropy of OF estimation [30], [31]; the
three features based segmentation algorithm: block mean gray
value, variance of gray values, and coherence [21]; and twostage estimation method for the OF computation [32].
C. Liang et al. (2006) [11]
The advantages of the proposed strategy start from its
novelty on indexing by combining multiple features of
minutiae detail and Delaunay triangle (its handedness, angles,
maximum edge, and related angle between orientation field and
edges). Minutia detail represents not only the type but also the
shape, which provides more minutiae classes than minutia
types, so it will reduces search space. Delaunay triangle, which
describes of local similarity, provides more insensitivity to
elastic distortion. Since Delaunay triangulation creates O(n)
triangles, which is much less than O(n3) triangles created by
triplets based algorithm, more redundant or wrong matched
triangles are avoided. It will reduce search space using a same
TM as a threshold of maximum number of triangles. This
strategy utilized existing minutia extraction algorithm with
relatively small additional computing effort to obtain minutia
detail. All of the correspondences found in indexing can work
as control points for estimating the nonlinear mapping function
between two fingerprints during distortion compensation.
Moreover, this strategy does not depend on singular point for
alignment, avoiding wrong or non-existing detection.
The drawbacks of this strategy start from its minutia detail,
which is based on bifurcation-type minutia, would provide less
discriminator information on fingerprint whose lack number of
this minutia type. This type of fingerprint would come from
partial or low-quality image where small number or wrong
bifurcation-type minutiae were detected. Also, no notice of
multithreaded algorithm utilization by this strategy. Moreover,
through massive experiments, Liang et al. (2007) [20] shows
that Delaunay triangulation may not be stable if even a tiny
distortion is applied on prints.
Related works to unveil sub methods used by this strategy
were based on minutiae-triplets based indexing [9], [22];
improved minutiae triplets by orientation field and FingerCode
[4]; and improved minutiae triplets by novel features e.g.,
triangle angles, handedness, type, and direction [10].
D. Liang et al. (2007) [20]
The advantages of the proposed strategy start from its
novelty by using Low-order Delaunay triangle (LoD triangle)
on improvement of indexing of combined multiple features
above by Liang et al. (2006) [11]. This strategy includes all of

the advantages by Liang et al. (2006) [11], with the additional

one on insensitivity to small shifts of minutiae by distortion
that reduce time and space complexities (direct effect) and
narrows down the search space in database (indirect effect) by
creating only O(n) Delaunay triangles.
The drawbacks of this strategy are the same as the
drawbacks belong to Liang et al. (2006) [11], with the
additional one on more computational cost to generate certain
number of additional order 1-Delaunay triangles, especially on
distorted fingerprints.
Related works to unveil sub methods used by this strategy
were based on improved minutiae triplets by applying
Delaunay triangulation [33]; and improved minutiae triplets by
using minutia detail and Delaunay triangle [11].
E. Shuai et al. (2008) [15]
The advantages of the proposed strategy start from its
novelty on indexing by using Scale Invariant Feature
Transformation (SIFT), which has been widely used in generic
image retrieval. Most of the minutiae points actually can also
be detected by SIFT interest point detector. Applying a
reducing procedure for SIFT results in slight loss in
effectiveness but great improvement in efficiency of retrieval.
Moreover, by using Locality-Sensitive Hashing (LSH) on the
index construction phase, makes it could perform similarity
queries by only examining a small fraction of the database.
The drawbacks of this strategy start from its behavior
without a reducing procedure that will generate a large number
of features over a broad range of scales and locations. Also, the
uncertainty of acquisition (e.g. partialness, distortion) was
handled by using a composite set of features from multiple
impressions per finger, no handling if using single impression.
Also, no notice of multithreaded algorithm utilization by this
strategy. Moreover, its accuracy comparison on FVC2000
DB2A [18] to De Boer at al. (2001) [4] and Jiang et al. (2006)
[2], was not head to head comparison because they used first
impressions per finger for index creation, instead of random
first three impressions. Also, De Boer at al. (2001) [4] results
have been obtained by using additional 80 fingerprints of
training set B [18] (more detail, see next Table II).
Related works to unveil sub methods used by this strategy
were based on LSH to index the set of 128-d SIFT descriptors
[34], [35]; and SIFT [36], [37].
F. Capelli (2011) [1]
The advantages of the proposed strategy start from its
novelty on indexing based on vector and scalar features,
obtained from ridge-line orientations and frequencies. It
depend on singular point (core) for alignment using two
detection approach [38], [39] where in case of ambiguities,
both approaches are allowed to propose up to five candidates.
Running on a 2.66-GHz Intel Core 2 Quad CPU, scalability
experiments on a data set containing one million synthetic
fingerprints achieved very good results: indexing one million
fingerprints requires 709 MB of memory, and a search over
such a large data set takes less than 1 s. Moreover,
multithreaded algorithm was already implemented.

The drawbacks of this strategy start from its limitation on

low fingerprint quality that causing incorrect core detection
and/or very noisy features to be extracted. Also, its limitation is
on core point that was not present in the image and/or small
overlapping region between the two fingerprints. Another
limitation is on large rotation because the proposed features
and score measures cannot tolerate a large amount of rotation
between the query and candidate in the database. On FVC2002
DB1A [19] which have largest number of good quality images
based on NFIQ measurement [13], this strategy result gave
relatively higher ER at PR below 10% than result on FVC2000
DB2A [18]. It need work out to solve this symptom.
Related works to unveil sub methods used by this strategy
were based on the traditional gradient-based technique to
estimate the local orientations [40]; the fingerprint pattern
segmentation from the background. [28]; the local ridge-line
frequencies estimation based on the local orientations [29]; the
iterative singularity approach for fingerprint core detection
[38]; ridge-line normal approach for fingerprint core detection
[39]; and similarity measure inspired by the distance measure
of local orientation [2].
G. Indrawan et al. (2014) [13]
The advantages of the proposed strategy start from its
novelty on indexing by using local-star structure, hashingbased mechanism, multi stage similarity score computation,
and variable-threshold-on-score-ratio based CL reduction. It
utilized existing minutia extraction algorithm that produce
information of its Cartesian coordinate, orientation, and type,
with relatively no additional computing effort. Also it reduced
time complexity for second stage verification [11][20] by
reducing CL through variable threshold on score ratio. This
strategy do not depend on singular point for alignment,
avoiding wrong or non-existing detection. Moreover,
multithreaded algorithm, was already implemented as
described by Indrawan et al. (2014) [12].
The drawbacks of this strategy start from unused extracted
local orientations which has been found very useful for
indexing in several other studies by Lumini et al. (1997) [41],
Cappelli et al. (1999) [6], Cappelli et al. (2002) [5], Lee et al.
(2005) [3], and Jiang et al. (2006) [2]. Also it still has no
advance database clustering mechanism for reducing search
space. Moreover, no utilization of image quality algorithm by
this strategy. Running on a 2.40 GHz Intel Core 2 Quad CPU, a
query from FVC2000 DB2A (256 x 364 pixel) takes average
time about 247ms, drastically increasing about triple time for a
query from FVC2000 DB3A (448 x 478 pixel) which takes
average time about 756ms. It need work out to suppress this
symptom.
Related works to unveil sub methods used by this strategy
were based on hashing mechanism inspired by minutiae-triplets
based indexing [9]; improved local-star based matching for
translation and rotation invariant [42]; minutia features
extraction (Cartesian coordinate, orientation, and type) [43];
variable threshold on score ratio to reduce CL length for
verification [11], [20], [44]; and Hill-climbing learning for
optimization of 71 algorithms parameters [45].

III.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULT COMPARISON

Based on compilation by Capelli [1] and Indrawan et al.

[13], Figs. 2 - 4 show accuracy of several fingerprint direct
access strategies on three publicly available data sets. The
experiment design was summarized by Table II.

Figure 2. Accuracy of direct-access strategies on FVC2000 DB2A.

Figure 3. Accuracy of direct-access strategies on FVC2000 DB3A.

Figure 4. Accuracy of direct-access strategies on FVC2002 DB1A.

TABLE II.
N
o
1

ACCURACY COMPARISON OF DIRECT-ACCESS STRATEGIES.

Index from
each finger
De Boer at al. (2001)2 [4]
FVC2000
First imp.
DB2A [18]
Jiang et al. (2006) [2]
First imp.
(Fig. 2)
Liang et al. (2006)2 [11]
First imp.
First imp.
Capelli (2011)3 [1]
3
First imp.
Indrawan et al. (2014) (M ) [13]
Indrawan et al. (2014) (M) [13]
First imp.
2 FVC2000
Jiang et al. (2006) [2]
First imp.
3
DB3A [18]
Capelli (2011) [1]
First imp.
(Fig. 3)
Indrawan et al. (2014) (M3) [13]
First imp.
Indrawan et al. (2014) (M) [13]
First imp.
Random imp.
3 FVC2002
Shuai et al. (2008) [15]
First imp.
DB1A [19]
Capelli (2011)3 [1]
Indrawan et al. (2014) (M3) [13]
First imp.
(Fig. 4)
Indrawan et al. (2014) (M) [13]
First imp.
Liang et al. (2007)1, 2 [20]
Random 3 imps.
Shuai et al. (2008)1 [15]
Random 3 imps.
Capelli (2011)1, 3 [1]
First 3 imps.
1, 3
Indrawan et al. (2014) (M ) [13] First 3 imps.
First 3 imps.
Indrawan et al. (2014) (M1) [13]
1
Results have been obtained by using three fingerprint impressions (3 imps.)
from each finger for index creation, instead of one (imp.).
2
Results have been obtained by using additional 80 fingerprints of training set
B [18][19], resulting in 880 fingerprints from 110 fingers.
3
Results have been obtained by selecting Top 10% Scores of CL (NT = N/10).
Data set

Published strategies

1. All of the results, except them with a superscript number

1 (Table II), were obtained by using first fingerprint
impression from each finger for index creation, and the
remaining seven for queries (In this scheme, Indrawan et al.
[13] results were represented by black dashed-lines). The
results with a superscript number 1 were obtained by
using first three fingerprint impressions from each finger
for index creation and the remaining five for queries (In this
scheme, Indrawan et al. [13] results were represented by
grey dashed-lines). Shuai et al. [15] and Liang et al. [20]
are the exceptions, as shown by Table II. They used random
impression or random three impressions from each finger
for index creation. This will have a consequence on
unpredictable quality of created index since first impression
or first three impressions, as it represents or they represent
higher quality image(s) than others from the same finger,
was or were not selected for sure. Because of that
consequence, random selection is not so appropriate for
head to head comparison. However, they are still worthy
shown to enrich analysis in this paper.
2. All of the results, except them with a superscript number
2 (Table II), were obtained by using 800 fingerprints of
testing set A [18][19] from 100 fingers. The results with a
superscript number 2 were obtained by using additional
80 fingerprints of training set B [18][19], resulting in 880
fingerprints from 110 fingers. In another word, the results
with a superscript number 2 were obtained by using
additional 10 impressions for index creation and 70
impressions for queries. Both of the results cannot be
merged for head to head comparison. However once again,
the results with a superscript number 2 are still worthy
shown to enrich analysis in this paper.

3. All of the results, except them with a superscript number

3 (Table II), were obtained without selecting Top 10%
Scores of CL (NT = N/10), where N is number of
impressions used by index creation (number of candidates
in database). The results with a superscript number 3
were obtained by selecting Top 10% Scores of CL.
4. Based on previous points, Indrawan et al. [13] provides
results that come from two search mode: 1) up to matcher
stage with NT selection of CL (dashed-lines with triangle
mark); and 2) up to matcher stage without NT selection of
CL (dashed-lines with round mark). For the next
discussion, two black dashed-lines with triangle and round
mark on Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 4, each will be referred as
Matcher3 (M3) and Matcher (M). Whilst, two grey dashedlines with triangle and round mark on Fig. 4, each will be
referred as Matcher1,3 (M1,3) and Matcher1 (M1). As Liang
et al. [11], [20] stated that the fingerprint identification can
be divided into fingerprint indexing and fingerprint
verification, M3, M, M1,3, and M1 of Indrawan et al. [13]
could be considered as sort of fingerprint verification. As
shown by Table II, M3 and M1,3 was provided for head to
head comparison each with Capelli3 [1] and Capelli1,3 [1],
whilst M and M1 was provided for head to head comparison
with other strategies. As confirmed by Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and
Fig. 4, M3/M1,3 was less accurate than M/M1. M3/M1,3 loss
its accuracy in certain degree compare to M/M1 because of
final CL selection by the second step of CL reduction [12]
which is simply selecting maximum top NT candidates of
CL if length of CL longer than NT.
5. This point refers to head to head comparison for strategies
utilizing NT. On Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, up to PR equal to 4%,
Indrawan et al. (M3) [13] gave lower ER rather than
Capelli3 [1]. Larger than PR equal to 4%, Capelli3 [1] has
faster rate of decrease of its ER to PR, so it gave lower ER
rather than Indrawan et al. (M3) [13]. On Fig. 4, at all PR on
the graph, Indrawan et al. (M3) [13] gave lower ER rather
than Capelli3 [1], and Indrawan et al. (M1,3) [13] gave lower
ER rather than Capelli1,3 [1]. Moreover, Indrawan et al.
(M1,3) [13] gave step down ideal curve where it can
maintain its PR equal to 1% for smaller ER. It means for
every query, search result of top one of CL (1% of number
of fingerprint at index) always give correct candidate.
6. This point refers to head to head comparison for strategies
not utilizing NT. On Fig. 2, up to PR equal to 5%, Indrawan
et al. (M) [13] gave lower ER rather than all other
strategies. Higher than PR equal to 5%, De Boer et al. [4]
(Combined) gave lower ER rather than Indrawan et al. (M)
[13]. Higher than PR equal to 13%, Liang et al. [11] gave
lower ER rather than Indrawan et al. (M) [13]. Higher than
PR equal to 22%, De Boer et al. [4] (Directional Field) gave
lower ER rather than Indrawan et al. (M) [13].
Unfortunately, Indrawan et al. (M) [13] cannot be
compared head to head to De Boer et al. [4] and Liang et al.
[11] because of different number of data set (see Table II).
Moreover, De Boer et al. obtained those results by
manually correcting the core point in 13% of the
fingerprints and by discarding 1% of the fingerprints

because no core point could be found. Indrawan et al. (M)

[13] have been performed neither such manual adjustments
nor rejections. Furthermore, Indrawan et al. (M) [13] can
only be compared head to head to Jiang et al. [2] start at PR
equal to 5% where Indrawan et al. (M) [13] gave lower ER
rather than Jiang et al. [2]. On Fig. 3, up to PR equal to
22%, Indrawan et al. (M) [13] gave lower ER rather than
Jiang et al. [2]. Higher than PR equal to 22%, Jiang et al.
[2] gave lower ER rather than Indrawan et al. (M) [13]. On
Fig. 4, at all PR on the graph, Indrawan et al. (M) [13] and
Indrawan et al. (M1) [13] gave lower ER rather than all
other strategies, even though no head to head comparison
exist because of different number of data set and different
impression(s) selection mechanism for index creation (see
Table II).
7. Beside related to the used methods with their pros and cons,
accuracy performance comparison results also related to the
used data set characteristics. Several points about these
characteristics that could explain those results (point 5 and
6): 1) Jiang et al. [2] stated fingerprints of FVC2000
DB2A have a higher image quality than those of FVC2000
DB3A. At a lower PR, successful retrieval needs closer
similarity between the query and the candidates, which is
more sensitive to the image quality. Therefore, FVC2000
DB2A has better retrieval performance than FVC2000
DB3A at lower PR. However, FVC2000 DB2A has a worse
retrieval performance than FVC2000 DB3A at higher PR
because of partial fingerprints whose core point is near the
image edge or out of the image. FVC2000 DB2A has more
such partial fingerprints than FVC2000 DB3A, which fails
to be retrieved even at high PR; 2) About fingerprint image
quality, Indrawan et al. [13] confirmed it by measurement
using NIST Fingerprint Image Quality (NFIQ) algorithm
[46]. NFIQ outputs the image quality value (where 1 is the
highest quality and 5 is the lowest quality) for 800 images
per data set. Percentage of images with quality 1 and 2 (two
highest image quality value) are about 88%, 26%, and 93%
for FVC2000 DB2A, FVC2000 DB3A, and FVC2002
DB1A, respectively. Unlike Jiang et al. [2], Indrawan et al.
[13] has nothing to do with core point (not depend on it), so
its retrieval performance on those data sets is in accordance
to their image quality results by NFIQ, i.e. best result on
FVC2002 DB1A, follow by FVC2000 DB2A, and then
FVC2000 DB3A.
IV.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, analysis has been conducted for several

aspects of publicly available fingerprint direct-access strategies
over three public data sets. It is including their advantages and
drawbacks, related works to unveil sub methods that construct
overall method, and systematic accuracy comparison which is
independent to the hardware platform. Accuracy comparison
gave a thought about a configuration standardization since
several different configurations were introduced that make
head to head comparison rather difficult to conduct. However,
it could be concluded on this recent accuracy comparison, PR
equal to 5% could be obtained at ER equal to 4%, 10%, and

1% each on FVC2000 DB2A, FVC2000 DB3A, and FVC2002

DB1A by certain strategies with their certain configuration.
This analysis gives important foundation on providing
knowledge for future possible combination of all the best thing
from the other compared fingerprint direct access strategies.
This foundation is for better future developments over new
strategies or future improvements over existing strategies
include authors work. Better future developments or
improvements is not intended only in area of fingerprint direct
access strategies, but also other data with same fashion of
direct access mechanism whose final objective to obtain more
accurate result with smaller area under ER/PR curve and
achieved with faster search time.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]

R. Cappelli, Fast and Accurate Fingerprint Indexing based on Ridge

Orientation and Frequency, IEEE Trans. Sys., Man, Cybern. B,
Cybern., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 15111521, Dec. 2011.
X. Jiang, M. Liu, and A. C. Kot, Fingerprint Retrieval for
Identification, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., 2006.
S. O. Lee, Y. G. Kim, and G. T. Park, A Feature Map Consisting of
Orientation and Inter-Ridge Spacing for Fingerprint Retrieval, in Proc.
5th Int. Conf. AVBPA, 2005.
J. De Boer, A. M. Bazen, and S. H. Gerez, Indexing Fingerprint
Databases based on Multiple Features, in ProRISC, 2001.
R. Cappelli, D. Maio, and D. Maltoni, A Multi-Classifier Approach to
Fingerprint Classification, Pattern Anal. Appl., 2002.
R. Cappelli, A. Lumini, D. Maio, and D. Maltoni, Fingerprint
Classification by Directional Image Partitioning, IEEE Trans. Pattern
Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 402421, May 1999.
J. Li, W. Y. Yau, and H. Wang, Fingerprint Indexing Based on
Symmetrical Measurement, in Proc. 18th ICPR, 2006.
M. Liu, X. Jiang, and A. C. Kot, Fingerprint Retrieval by Complex
Filter Responses, in Proc. 18th ICPR, 2006, vol. 1, no. 1.
R. S. Germain, A. Califano, and S. Colville, Fingerprint Matching
Using Transformation Parameter Clustering, IEEE Comput. Sci. Eng.,
vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 4249, Dec. 1997.
B. Bhanu and X. Tan, Fingerprint Indexing Based on Novel Features
of Minutiae Triplets, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 2003.
X. Liang, T. Asano, and A. Bishnu, Distorted Fingerprint Indexing
Using Minutia Detail and Delaunay Triangle, in Proc. 3rd ISVD,
2006, pp. 217223.
G. Indrawan, S. Akbar, A. S. Nugroho, and B. Sitohang, A MultiThreaded Fingerprint Direct-Access Strategy Using Local-StarStructure-based Discriminator Features, TELKOMNIKA Indones. J.
Electr. Eng., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 40794090, 2014.
G. Indrawan, S. Akbar, and B. Sitohang, Fingerprint Direct-Access
Strategy Using Local-Star-Structure-based Discriminator Features: A
Comparison Study, Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng., 2014.
S. Biswas, N. K. Ratha, G. Aggarwal, and J. Connell, Exploring Ridge
Curvature for Fingerprint Indexing, in Proc. IEEE 2nd Int. Conf.
BTAS, 2008, pp. 16.
X. Shuai, C. Zhang, and P. Hao, Fingerprint Indexing Based on
Composite Set of Reduced SIFT Features, in Proc. 19th ICPR, 2008.
A. Gyaourova and A. Ross, A Novel Coding Scheme for Indexing
Fingerprint Patterns, in Proc. 7th Intl Workshop S+SSPR, 2008.
T. Maeda, M. Matsushita, and K. Sasakawa, Identification Algorithm
Using A Matching Score Matrix, IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. - Spec. Issue
Biometric Pers. Authentication, vol. E84-D, no. 7, pp. 819824, 2001.
D. Maio, D. Maltoni, R. Cappelli, J. L. Wayman, and A. K. Jain,
FVC2000: Fingerprint Verification Competition, IEEE Trans.
Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 402412, Mar. 2002.
D. Maio, D. Maltoni, R. Cappelli, J. L. Wayman, and A. K. Jain,
FVC2002: Second Fingerprint Verification Competition, in Proc.
16th Intl Conf. Pattern Recognition, 2002, vol. 3, pp. 811814.

[20] X. Liang, A. Bishnu, and T. Asano, A Robust Fingerprint Indexing

Scheme Using Minutia Neighborhood Structure and Low-Order
Delaunay Triangles, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., 2007.
[21] A. M. Bazen and S. H. Gerez, Segmentation of Fingerprint Images,
in Proceedings of ProRISC2001, 12th Annu. Workshop Circuits,
Systems, and Signal Processing, 2001.
[22] B. Bhanu and X. Tan, A Triplet based Approach for Indexing of
Fingerprint Database for Identification, in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Audioand Video-Based Biometric Person Authentication, 2001, pp. 205210.
[23] A. M. Bazen and S. H. Gerez, Directional Field Computation for
Fingerprints based on the Principal Component Analysis of Local
Gradients, in Proceedings of ProRISC2000, 11th Annual Workshop on
Circuits, Systems and Signal Processing, 2000.
[24] A. M. Bazen and S. H. Gerez, Systematic Methods for the
Computation of the Directional Field and Singular Points of
Fingerprints, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 2002.
[25] A. M. Bazen and S. H. Gerez, Extraction of Singular Points from
Directional Fields of Fingerprints, in Mobile Communications in
Perspective, CTIT Workshop on Mobile Communications, University of
Twente, 2001, pp. 4144.
[26] A. K. Jain, S. Prabhakar, and L. Hong, A Multichannel Approach to
Fingerprint Classification, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.,
vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 348359, Apr. 1999.
[27] A. K. Jain, S. Prabhakar, L. Hong, and S. Pankanti, Filterbank-based
Fingerprint Matching, IEEE Trans. Image Process., 2000.
[28] D. Maio and D. Maltoni, Direct Gray-Scale Minutiae Detection in
Fingerprints, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 1997.
[29] L. Hong, Y. Wan, and A. K. Jain, Fingerprint Image Enhancement:
Algorithm and Performance Evaluation, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Mach. Intell., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 777789, 1998.
[30] A. K. Jain, L. Hong, and R. Bolle, On-line Fingerprint Verification,
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 1997.
[31] A. K. Jain, L. Hong, S. Pankanti, and R. Bolle, An Identityauthentication System Using Fingerprints, in Proc. IEEE, 1997.
[32] X. D. Jiang, On Orientation and Anisotropy Estimation for Online
Fingerprint Authentication, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2005.
[33] G. Bebis, T. Deaconu, and M. Georgiopoulos, Fingerprint
Identification Using Delaunay Triangulation, in Proc. Int. Conf.
Information Intelligence and Systems, 1999, pp. 452459.
[34] A. Gionis, P. Indyk, and R. Motwani, Similarity Search in High
Dimensions via Hashing, in Proc. 25th Intl Conf. VLDB, 1999.
[35] Y. Ke, R. Sukthankar, and L. Huston, Efficient Near-Duplicate
Detection and Sub-Image Retrieval, in Proc. ACM Multimedia Conf.,
2004, pp. 869876.
[36] D. G. Lowe, Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant
Keypoints, Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 91110, 2004.
[37] J. J. Foo and R. Sinha, Pruning SIFT for Scalable Near-Duplicate
Image Matching, in Proc. 18th ADC, 2007, pp. 6371.
[38] K. Karu and A. K. Jain, Fingerprint Classification, Pattern Recog.,
vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 389404, Mar. 1996.
[39] K. Rerkrai and V. Areekul, A New Reference Point for Fingerprint
Recognition, in Proc. Int. Conf. Image Process., 2000, pp. 499502.
[40] N. K. Ratha, S. Y. Chen, and A. K. Jain, Adaptive Flow Orientationbased Feature Extraction in Fingerprint Images, Pattern Recog., 1995.
[41] A. Lumini, D. Maio, and D. Maltoni, Continuous versus Exclusive
Classification for Fingerprint Retrieval, Pattern Recog. Lett., 1997.
[42] N. K. Ratha, V. D. Pandit, R. M. Bolle, and V. Vaish, Robust
Fingerprint Authentication Using Local Structural Similarity, in Proc.
Work. Appl. Comput. Vis., 2000, pp. 2934.
[43] R. Vazan, SourceAFIS | Fingerprint Recognition Library for .NET and
Experimentally
for
Java,
2009.
[Online].
Available:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/sourceafis/. [Accessed: 25-Oct-2013].
[44] R. Cappelli, M. Ferrara, and D. Maio, Candidate List Reduction Based
on The Analysis of Fingerprint Indexing Scores, IEEE Trans. Inf.
Forensics Secur., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 11601164, Sep. 2011.
[45] S. J. Russell and P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern
Approach, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, 2003.
[46] C. I. Watson, M. D. Garris, E. Tabassi, C. L. Wilson, R. M. McCabe, S.
Janet, and K. Ko, Users Guide to NIST Biometric Image Software,
Gaithersburg, 2004.