Pattern Recof4nition Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 113 122. 1986. 0031 3203 86 S30,)+ (W.

)
Pnnted in Great Britain. Pergamon Press Ltd
i 1986 Pattern Recognmon Sooet}

F IN GER P R IN T IDENTIFICATION USI NG

GRAPH MATCHING*
D. K. ISENOR and S. G. ZAKYt
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Toronto. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S IA4

(Received 20 August 1984: in revisedJbrm 8 April 1985)

Abstract--A new algorithm for automated fingerprint encoding and matching is presented. The algorithm is
intended to be insensitive to imperfections introduced during fingerprint registration, such as noise.
distortion and displacement. A fingerprint is represented in the form of a graph whose nodes correspond to
ridges in the print. Edges of the graph connect nodes that represent neighboring or intersecting ridges. Hence
the graph structure captures the topological relationships within the fingerprint. The algorithm has been
implemented and tested using a library of real-life fingerprint images.

Fingerprint recognition Identification Graph matching Encoding

I. I N T R O D U C T I O N representation. In the next stage, image enhancement

Fingerprints have been used as a means of identifying
individuals for a very long time. The early Egyptians
and Chinese are known to have used them to identify
criminals and to record business transactions. ~1) The
use of computers in the fingerprint matching process is
highly desirable in many applications. Examples in-
clude building security systems (2-5)and police work, In
the latter, computers can be used to simplify the task of
searching large files of fingerprintsJ 6-1°~
Figure 1 shows the steps performed by a general-
purpose digital fingerprint matching system. First,
some device senses and digitizes the fingerprint, or
inked card, producing a pixel array, with grey-level
FINGERPRINT J
SENSING
I
ENCHANCEMENT
ENCODING
I is handled by an algorithm that determines the degree
I CLASSIFICATION
d-j
I FILE SEARCH
VERIFICATION
techniques may be used to improve the quality of the
image. ~1~ Also, an attempt may be made to detect
areas of bad data, caused by dirt, cuts, scars, poor
inking, etc., and to repair the damage. Then, a
thresholding algorithm is applied to produce a binary
image, consisting of an array of black and white pixels.
In the encoding step, the image is reduced to a form
that the matching algorithms can handle. In a criminal
identification system, an optional classification step
may be included. 112-15)This is followed by a file search
to obtain a match, or a list of potential matches. Some
systems may incorporate a verification step that
involves a human operator.
The matching process, whether manual or auto-
matic, is based on the identification and matching of
fingerprint minutiae. These are irregularities such as
ridge endings and joinings, whose types and locations
are unique for every individual. In most existing
J fingerprint matching systems, the encoding step starts
with the identification ofall minutiae present in a given
print/~ 6) by means that may not be entirely automatic.
The minutiae locations, and possibly the correspond-
ing ridge directions, are recorded relative to an x - y
grid that is superimposed on the print. Then, matching
of correlation between the minutiae locations and
directions in two prints.
The problems faced by digital matchers arise mostly
from the use of an x - y grid, and from the inevitable
MATCHING
presence of noise. The finger may be displaced, rotated,
1 stretched or compressed during fingerprinting. All

*This work was partially supported by the Natural

RESPONSE
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, under
grant No. A8994.
Fig. I. Steps taken by a general-purpose fingerprint marcher. ~"To whom correspondence should be addressed.

113
114
such movements change the coordinates and direc-
tions of the minutiae on the grid. Thus the problem of
fingerprint matching is, in fact, one of matching
deformed images, Similar to that reported in Baj-
scy. (17) Also, noise, in the form of dirt, scars, bad
inking, etc., causes loss of information or creation of
false information. Matching algorithms must antici-
pate these situations and compensate for them.
This paper introduces encoding and matching algo-
rithms that are insensitive to finger orientation and
stretching, and to many types of noise. The proposed-
encoding scheme obviates the need for an x - y grid.
Instead, it uses the fingerprint ridges themselves to
form an intrinsic coordinate system, relative to which
the minutiae are described. The salient aspects of the
proposed technique are described below. Further
details can be found in Isenor. (~s)
2. T H E E N C O D I N G SCHEME
Fingerprint minutiae represent points at which
ridges end (called endings) or at which several ridges
intersect (called bifurcations or joinings). The scheme
presented in this paper is based on the premise that
minutiae locations can be encoded by describing the
topological relationships of fingerprint ridges. A print
is encoded in the form of a graph, in which nodes
represent ridges and edges represent ridge adjacency
information. The resulting representation is much less
sensitive to noise, rotation or distortion than a descrip-
tion involving x - y coordinates.
Starting with a digitized fingerprint, in which valleys
appear as light pixels and ridges as dark pixels, a ridge-
thinning algorithm t~9) is used to reduce all ridges to a
thickness of one pixel. Then, ridge endings and joinings
are identified by examining the state of adjacent pixels
of each dark pixel. An example is shown in Fig. 2. An
ending is a dark pixel that has exactly one adjacent
dark pixel, and a joining has at least three. Pixels on the
print boundary are not identified as endings, because
different prints of the same finger will not necessarily
have the same boundaries. It should be noted that this
processing step is simplified by the fact that ridges are
only one pixel thick, hence the need for the thinning
step mentioned above. Pixels that belong to the same
ridge are identified as such, and each ridge is given a
RIDGE 1 JOINING ,,.-RIDGE2
o ° _ o o/.
o o o o
• o - ~
o o
/o o
o
o o
A0o o
o
o
~'- E N D I N G
Fig. 2. Identification of fingerprint features.
D.K. ISENORand S. G. ZAKY
END2 END1
END 2
Fig. 3. Ridge orientation.
unique number. The total number of pixels that
constitute a ridge is taken as a measure of the length of
that ridge. Since elastic distortion of the finger may
cause significant changes in this parameter, it is used
only as an approximate measure during the matching
process.
In the next step an ordering is assigned to the two
sides and two ends of each ridge. Initially, one end of a
ridge is arbitrarily chosen to be end 1, and the other
end to be end 2. The ordering for the two sides of the
ridge is chosen such that, starting from end 1 and
progressing clockwise around the ridge, the numbers
encountered are end 1, side 1, end 2 and side 2,
respectively. Thus, there are two possible orderings for
the ends and sides of a given ridge, depending upon
which end is chosen as end 1, as shown in Fig. 3. The
choice of a particular ordering for a given ridge will be
referred to as the orientation ofthat ridge. Initially, the
orientation assigned to all ridges is arbitrary.
In order to capture ridge-adjacency information, the
concept of neighbors is introduced. Neighbors come in
two varieties: end neighbors and side neighbors. End
neighbors are those ridges that share a common
joining. Thus, referring to the example in Fig. 4, end-2
neighbors of ridge R 1 are R 5 and R 6. End 1 of ridge R~
is outside the print. Side neighbors are defined as
follows. Ridge R i is said to "see" ridge R~ as a neighbor
if a perpendicular emanating from some point on Ri
intersects Rj without crossing any other ridge. Thus,
ridge R 1 in Fig. 4 sees ridges R2, R 3 and R 4 as its side- 1
neighbors and R6 and R7 as its side-2 neighbors. Ridge
Rs is not a neighbor of ridge R1, because no per-
pendicular to R~ intersects Rs without crossing an-
other ridge. It should be noted that the neighbor
relationship is not necessarily reciprocal. For example,
while ridge R t sees R4 as a neighbor, R4 does not see
R t as a neighbor. No perpendicular emanating from a
point on R 4 intersects R~.
After identifying all neighbors of a given ridge, R, the
"overlap" length is determined for each neighbor. This
o is defined as the total length, measured in pixels, over
which each neighbor runs parallel and adjacent to
o o
o
o
o
Fig. 4. An example illustrating side- and end-neighbors of
ridge R I.
 Fingerprint identification using graph matching
ridge R. It is obtained by counting the number of pixels
on ridge R from which perpendiculars can be drawn to
intersect the neighbor. As in the case of ridge length,
the overlap length is regarded only as an approximate
measure.
2.1. Level numbering
The idea of neighbors describes the topology in the
vicinity of a given ridge of a fingerprint. The concept of
levels is introduced to provide global information
about the location of each ridge within the print. It is
based on the observation that a fingerprint is a layered
structure of ridges. Each layer, or level, is given a
sequential number. Figure 5 shows a fingerprint, with
the levels numbered in increasing order from top to
bottom.
For the concept of levels to be useful, it must be
possible to derive the level numbers in a consistent and
repeatable way. This is accomplished by the level
numbering algorithm. First, the orientation of all
ridges is adjusted so that the direction of increasing
level numbers is always from.side I to side 2. Because of
the randomness of the initial selection of which side is
side 1, the orientation of some ridges may have to be
reversed to satisfy this requirement. This is dealt with
by the encoder in the following way. A ridge is selected
that runs along the top or left-hand side border of the
picture. It is identified by the fact that it has no
neighbors along one side. If that side is side 1, then all is
well; but if it is side 2, then side 1 is exchanged with side
2, and end 1 is exchanged with end 2, a process called
flipping. This ridge is now noted to be in its proper
orientation. With this ridge as a starting point, the
following rules are applied recursively to orient the rest
of the ridges:
Given a properly oriented ridge, R:
(1) All side-2 neighbors of ridge R that have R as a
neighbor on one side only are flipped, if necessary,
so that that side is side 1. They are then marked as
properly oriented.
(2) All side-I neighbors of ridge R that have R as a
neighbor on one side only are flipped, if necessary,
so that that side is side 2. They are then marked as
properly oriented.
(3) The first clockwise neighbor on end 2 of R, and the
first counter-clockwise neighbor on end 1 of R, are
forced to mate with R's ends such that end 1 of R
. . . . . . . ._]
Fig. 5. A section of a fingerprint showing level numbers.
115
$1
Fig. 6. Example of proper ridge orientation.
meets end 2 of the neighbor, and end 2 of R meets
end 1 of the neighbor. This rule applies only to
neighbors not affected by rules 1 and 2, and only if
none of the ridges involved are side neighbors of
each other.
The result of applying the above rules is that side I of
any ridge usually sees side 2 of its neighbors, as
illustrated in Fig. 6.
Once all ridges have been properly oriented, level
numbers can be assigned. The main criteria used in this
step are that, given a ridge R with level number L, all its
side-1 neighbors must be of level L - 1 or lower, and all
its side-2 neighbors must be of level L + 1 or higher.
Also, the ridges defined in rule 3 of the orienting
routine given above must be at level L. The level
numbers shown in Fig. 5 are consistent with these
rules.
The level numbers assigned to the ridges are depen-
dent on the choice of the starting point. If two im-
pressions of the same finger do not have the same
boundaries, level numbers in the two prints will be
shifted relative to each other. Moreover, some inter-
mediate levels in one print may be missing in the other.
This effect is illustrated by the level numbers in Fig. 7.
The print in this figure corresponds to the section
enclosed by the dotted-line boundary in Fig. 5. Level
LI in Fig. 7 corresponds to level L3 in Fig. 5, and level
L5 in Fig. 5 is missing in Fig. 7. It is important to note,
however, that although the absolute values have
changed, the relative positions of the levels in Fig. 7
have not changed. That is, the sequence of increasing
levels is preserved, even though some items in the
sequence may be lost. It is this property that makes the
concept of levels useful.
2.2. Graph representation
Having identified all ridges and their parameters, a
directed graph representing the print is defined. Each
node in the graph corresponds to one ridge. An edge
emanating from node i and terminating at node j is
created whenever ridge i sees ridge j as a neighbor.
k 1.......-
/
Fig. 7. Level numbering for the subarea within the dotted-line
boundary of Fig. 5.
 116 D.K. ISENORand S. G. ZAKV
Graph edges are labelled to indicate whether the nodes
they interconnect are side neighbors or end neighbors.
For each ridge, R, the following information is also
recorded as part of the description of the correspond-
ing node in the graph:
the ridge length;
whether the ridge is complete; that is whether both
ends of the ridge appear in the print. Complete
ridges are given more importance in the matching
process;
nature of the minutiae at each end (ending or
joining). In the case of a joining the number of ridges
involved is recorded;
the clockwise order of the ridge neighbors, starting
from end 1;
the overlap length for each neighbor.
The graph representation captures all the infor-
mation needed in the matching process. In particular,
fingerprint minutiae appear as substructures in the
graph. Two minutiae types and their graph represen-
tations are given as examples in Fig. 8. Thus, the
fingerprint matching problem has been reduced to the
problem of matching two graphs of the type described
above. The descriptive information attached to the
nodes and edges of the graph is used in the matching
process, as will be explained in Section 3. First, the way
in which some commonly encountered fingerprint
defects are handled is discussed.
2.3. Noise and special minutiae
The graph representation provides a mechanism by
which many fingerprint defects can be recognized and
repaired. Such defects include false minutiae intro-
duced during the fingerprinting process, in the form of
ridge breaks and joins. Ridge breaks are usually
ignored by human experts, because they represent
unreliable information. They are also deleted from the
minutiae lists generated in most existing computerized
fingerprint matching systems: 8" 1~.2o. 2 ~) A ridge break
SIDE NEIGHBOUR
END NEIGHB:).R-- -
Fig. 8. Examples of fingerprint minutiae and their graph
representation.
I 1
~ ~2+3
1+2
(b) "--'TTT-'-"-~
~\- -%
"._,~ ~ ~1,2
-- ~3+~.
Fig. 9. Repairing fingerprint defects.(a) Ridge break. (b) Ridge
join.
can be easily recognized in the graph representation of
a fingerprint. It appears as two nodes, each with ridge
ending minutiae, that are consecutive neighbors of
another ridge. All such breaks are repaired by simply
merging the two nodes into one, as shown in Fig. 9a.
Figure 9b illustrates a ridge join resulting from dirt
or ink forming a bridge between two ridges. Such
defects can also be recognized from the graph repre-
sentation. They are repaired by breaking them. It
should be noted that a valid minutiae known as a
crossover may appear in some fingerprints. It results
from two ridges crossing each other. Because of its
rarity, a crossover is an important identification
feature. Unfortunately, it is indistinguishable from a
false join of the type shown in Fig. 9b. Since false joins
are much more common than crossovers, the safe
choice is to break all joins of this type.
Other special minutiae, such as islands or lakes, may
also appear in fingerprints. Such minutiae are difficult
to recognize in grid-based systems: s.tS,22 241 In the
proposed graph representation, they can be recognized
as specific substructures, as shown in Fig. 10, and used
to enhance the reliability of the matching process.
However, such capabilities have not been included in
the prototype implementation of the matching algo-
rithm presented below.
3. MATCHING
The purpose of the matching algorithm is to deter-
mine whether two graphs represent the same finger-
print. Although much work has been done in the
area of graph isomorphism (25 28~ the basic methods
developed are not directly suitable for fingerprint
matching problems as defined above. This is because
available methods assume simple graph forms in
which nodes and edges contain no descriptive infor-
mation. Also, most graph matching algorithms define a
match as being a perfect one-to-one mapping of one
 Fingerprint identification using graph matching
1 2
J 2 ~ graph G A has anywhere from 0 to N nodes in graph Gn
• t-
Fig. 10. Special minutiae and the corresponding graph
structure.
graph to another. This is an unattainable goal when
matching fingerprints, where each graph may have
missing or extra nodes. Hence, the result of the
matching process should be some measure of the
'goodness' of the match, not simply a yes or no
response.
Consider two graphs G A and GB, having nodes a~,
a2.....a M and b 1, b2..... b N, respectively. In this section
a matching process is described, which comprises three
steps: partitioning, refinement and scoring. In the
partitioning step, all nodes in GB that are potential
matches for each node in GA are identified. Next, the re-
finement pass reduces the number of possible match-
es by examining the neighbors of the nodes involved.
Finally, the scoring pass chooses those remaining
node-to-node matches that maximize the match score.
3.1. Partitionin 9
In the first step, a partitioning array, P, that has M
rows and N columns is created, where M and N are the
numbers of the nodes in the two graphs G,t and Ga,
respectively. Element P~j in the array is True whenever
node bj is a possible match for node a~. Thus, each row
of P describes a partition of graph G a. Initially, all
elements of P are True. The value of P~j becomes False
if:
(l) The corresponding ridges differ in length by more
than 30~,i. The 30~o margin allows for differences
due to elastic distortion and any measurement
errors.
(2) The numbers of neighbours on corresponding sides
of the ridges differ by more than one. The plus-or-
minus-one condition allows for differences due to
noise, which may devide one ridge into two, thus
introducing extra nodes in the graph.
Recall that some nodes are incomplete; that is, the
corresponding ridges are not fully in the image. Thus,
the comparisons described above cannot be fully
117
implemented on all nodes. Also, the number of end
neighbors is not used in the comparisons, because end
neighbors may be the result ofjoinings introduced by
noise.
3.2. Refinement
At the end of the partitioning step, each node in
as potential matches. The refinement step attempts to
decrease the number of nodes in each partition.
Ideally, there should be only one node in each partition
for a match, or none in any partition for a non-
match. To reduce the size of partition ai, the neighbors
of node a~ are compared with the neighbors of each
node bj in its partition. A mapping between a~ and bj is
retained only if the side neighbors of ai map onto the
corresponding side neighbors of bj. The refinement
process is applied to all nodes in graph GA, and is
repeated until no more nodes can be eliminated from
any partition.
During the refinement step, neighbors on each side
of a ridge are considered separately. A mapping is
eliminated only if there is disagreement on both sides.
If a mapping is eliminated due to a disagreement on
one side only, then a single error at a single node can
propagate in successive iterations and cause many
mappings to be eliminated. The requirement that a
mismatch exist on both sides before a mapping is
eliminated increases the algorithm's tolerance to noise.
3.3. Scoring
At the end of the partitioning and refinement steps, a
given node in graph GA may still map onto several
nodes in graph G B. The scoring pass chooses a single
node from each partition, such that no node is used
twice, and such that a score measuring the goodness of
the match is maximized.
Let us assume that node b~has been chosen from the
a~ partition as a possible good match for node a~. We
shall use the notation (a~, b~) to indicate this mapping.
Using a~ and bj as roots, a tree is traced in each graph.
While tracing each tree, node l may be included as a
son of node k only if node k has node I as a neighbor,
and if the level number of node I is higher than that of
node k. Thus, each tree may grow only in the direction
of increasing level numbers. The two trees for the (a i, b j)
mapping are grown in parallel in the two graphs. As
they grow, they must be identical; that is, if a node in
the a~ tree has three sons, the same must be true for the
corresponding node in the bj tree, and each son node in
the a~ tree must map onto the corresponding son in the
bj tree. When the two trees have grown to the
maximum size possible under these rules, a score is
calculated and assigned to the (al, b j) mapping. The
score is based on the number and type of minutiae that
have been matched by the two trees.
Since trees grow in the direction of increasing level
numbers, a tree starting at a node having the highest
level number will consist of only one node. These trees
118 D.K. ISENORand S. G. ZAKV
Fig. 11. A sample fingerprint image used in the experimental
investigation. Print No. 1.
are grown first. Then trees are grown with roots at
successively lower levels. Trees with low numbered
roots will grow to include the smaller trees, for which
the scores are already available. Thus the score for a
new tree is calculated simply by adding the scores of
the subtrees it consumes. It is possible that, in some
cases, more than one tree can be grown starting at a
given node as a root. In such cases all possible
alternatives are evaluated, and the tree yielding the
highest score is chosen.
When all possible trees have been grown, the one
producing the highest score is selected as the final tree.
If more than one tree has the same high score, then the
one using the fewest nodes is selected as the best. Since
trees may not grow backwards, some nodes may not be
included in the final tree. Small trees incorporating
these nodes are grown after the main tree has been
completed. If the new trees intersect the main one, they
are merged with it. The resulting score is taken as a
measure of the degree to which the two fingerprints
match each other.
3.4. Computational complexity
Consider the problem of matching two images, each
having P x P pixels and representing a fingerprint
that has N ridges. During the encoding process, the
number of times pixel information is examined or
modified is small and fixed. Hence, the computational
complexity of the encoding algorithm is of the order
O(P2).
The matching phase is a graph isomorphism prob-
lem, whose general case is known to have non-
polynomial (NP) complexity. However, because of the
additional information associated with the graph
nodes and edges, the complexity of the proposed
heuristic algorithm is substantially lower. During the
matching process, there are N 2 mappings to be
considered. Thus, the partitioning step is of order
O(N2). Because of the iterative nature of the refinement
step, it has a theoretical complexity of O(N3). Similarly,
the scoring step requires the construction of up to N 2
trees, each having a maximum of N nodes. This leads
to a complexity of O(N3). In practical problems,
however, the complexity of the refinement and scoring
steps is expected to be considerably lower. In all cases
tested by the authors, the number of refinement passes
seldom exceeded two. Also, during the scoring step, the
scores for larger trees are computed from already
existing scores of smaller trees. Thus, only a few nodes
are examined while constructing a new tree. As a result,
the overall complexity of the matching process is much
closer to O(N2), where N is number of ridges in the
fingerprint.
4. EXPERIMENTALRESULTS
The encoding and matching algorithms presented
above were tested using a small library of digitized
prints obtained from the R.C.M.P. headquarters in
Ottawa. Figure 11 shows one of the prints used. This
picture has been reproduced on a high resolution
screen from the digitized form. It consists of
1536 x 1536 pixels, each represented by 8 bits of grey
scale information. Several overlapping windows were
extracted from each print, with each window contain-
ing 512 x 512 pixels. Figure 12 shows three such
windows extracted from the print of Fig. I I. In the
subsequent discussion, each window will be identified
by a number of the form x- y, where x is the number of
the original print, and y is the number of the subarea.
A representative sample of the windows extracted
from the fingerprint images is given in Fig. 13. The
fingerprint of Fig. 11 has an arch structure. Those of
Fig. 13 include an arch, two whorls and a loop.
Chiralo's thresholding algorithm ~ 1~ was used to
reduce the images to an array of black and white pixels.
A simple two-dimensional low-pass filter was then
used to reduce each window to a 128 × 128-pixel
array. A pixel in the reduced array is dark if the
majority of the pixels it replaces in the original image
are dark. The ridges were thinned to a one-pixel width
using a modified version of Deutsch's algorithm/~gJ
Each window was matched against itself and against
every other window. The scores obtained for each of
these matches are given in Table 1. The scores along
the diagonal of the table represent windows matched
against themselves. As expected, these scores are the
highest in the table. The scores enclosed by the dotted
rectangles represent matches between windows ex-
tracted from the same print. As the distance from the
diagonal increases, the amount of overlapping area
decreases, thus decreasing the number of matching
minutiae. This is correctly reflected in the match
scores.
Those scores falling outside the dotted rectangles
represent matches between windows taken from differ-
ent fingerprints. Of interest are the scores for matches
 Fingerprint identification using graph matching 119

Fig. 12. Examples ofwindows extracted from the print in Fig. 12. Window No. 1.1. Window No. 1.2. Window
No. 1.3.

between windows 1.1 to 1.5 and windows 2.1 to 2.3. small scores for good matches are:
Fingerprints number 1 and 2 represent two separate
(1) Insufficient image size. In some cases, less than 15
registrations of the same finger, and should therefore
valid minutiae were present in a window. This is a
produce relatively high scores when matched against
very small number of minutiae to work with for
each other. Unfortunately, while this is the case, it is
matching purposes, even for a human expert.
only marginally so, There is no clear dividing line
(2) Small overlap. The offset from one window to
between the scores for matches of similar windows and
another was often large enough to reduce the
those for dissimilar windows.
number of matching minutiae to a very small
A more detailed examination of the results of each
number.
match showed that the tree building algorithm de-
(3) Poor image enhancement. Very little image pro-
scribed in Section 3.3 has correctly identified the
cessing was performed on the original prints. As a
matching areas of the two prints, whenever they
result, a considerable amount of noise was present.
existed. However, because of a combination of factors
a clear separation between the scores of good and bad Despite the above difficulties, the tree building algo-
matches was not possible, except in the cases of rithm was able to correctly identify matching minu-
identical graphs. A m o n g the factors that have lead to tiae. Hence, the absence of a well defined threshold in
120 D.K. ISENORand S. G. ZAKY

Fig. 13. Sample windows showing a variety of ridge structures. Window No. 2.3. Window No. 5.2. Window
No. 6.2. Window No. 7.1.

the match scores is most likely a result of the way in
which the scores are computed. This is currently being
investigated.
The software for the encoding and matching algo-
rithms has been written in Euclid, and the above
tests were run on a VAX-780 computer. The average
encoding time for each window was 16.2 CPU seconds,
with a minimum of 12.7s and a maximum of 19.5s.
The matching stage took between 33.5 and 237 s, with
an average of 90 s. No comparable results are available
to the authors at the present time to enable a
meaningful comparison with the performance of other
matching techniques.
5. C O N C L U S I O N
The fingerprint matching algorithm presented in
this paper uses the topological relationship among
ridges as a means for encoding fingerprint information.
As a result, the encoding scheme is highly tolerant of
distortion, rotation and translation of the fingerprint
image.
The tests conducted by the authors have shown that
the matching algorithm correctly locates matching
areas, whenever they exist. However, the score used to
indicate the goodness of a match between two prints
did not exhibit a sharp threshold separating positive
from negative matches. At least in part, this has been a
result of using small windows, containing very few
minutiae. It is hoped that the ability of the encoding
scheme to identify special minutiae and repair many
types of noise can be used to improve the score profile.
This is currently being investigated.
 Fingerprint identification using graph matching 121

T a b l e I. S c o r e s f o r all print-to-print comparisons

Print n u m b e r
I.I 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 ..". ~ . 2.3. . 5.1 . 5.2
. . '~. ~ . 5.4 '~ '~ 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1

1.1 136 108 47 26 15 24 24 28 20 I0 16 14 15 21 23 13 II

1.2 I08 126 90 64 20 , 24 28 26 19 12 13 15 14 18 16 18 II

1.3 47 86 171 67 19 , 20 23 20 13 11 9 I1 13 19 19 20 II

1.4 26 60 67 173 44 ' 13 29 22 14 13 II II 16 II 14 10 II

1.5 15 20 19 44 168 15 15 14 II 13 14 10 14 14 14 10 9

2.1 24 24 20 13 15 83 17 19 , 17 14 7 9 I1 14 12 I[ II

24 28 23 29 15 , 17 113 43 ' 13 9 11 13 8 I8 18 I4 7

2.3 31 30 18 22 16 ' 23 47 160 ' 19 13 I1 8 15 14 14 12 13

Print
number 5.1 20 19 13 14 11 17 13 15 ' 287 36 12 12 18 15 15 12 10

5.2 14 16 II 13 13 14 6 13 36 403 14 II 12 I1 13 18 14

5.3 16 13 9 II 14 12 II II , 18 13 315 12 35 I0 20 9 10

5.4 14 15 10 9 10 II 13 t2 ' 12 II I1 400 14 II 13 10 10

5.5 15 14 13 16 14 I1 8 12 ' 18 13 21 14 316 19 12 17 12

6.1 21 18 19 11 14 14 18 II 15 II 10 9 19 , 197 88 35 9

6.2 23 16 19 14 14 12 18 14 15 13 10 11 12 88 216 30 9

6.3 13 18 20 10 10 11 15 II 12 14 9 10 17 35 30 172 10

7.1 11 II II II 15 11 10 10 10 14 II l0 12 9 9 I0 367

SUMMARY edges pointing to its closest neighbors. Identifying

This paper introduces a new algorithm for encoding
and matching of fingerprints. One of the problems
encountered by many existing systems for fingerprint
matching is that they are highly sensitive to imperfec-
tions introduced during fingerprinting. Such imperfec-
tions include distortion, rotation and noise caused by
the inking process. Because of distortion and rotation,
an x - y grid is not a convenient coordinate system for
describing the locations of the fingerprint minutiae.
The encoding scheme proposed in this paper is
based on describing the topological relationships of
fingerprint ridges. After identifying all ridges in a
fingerprint, the side and end neighbors of each ridge
are determined. The idea of neighbors allows ridges to
be located relative to each other; the next step is to
locate the ridges relative to the rest of the print. The
concept of levels, or layers, is used to capture this
information. This approach is based on the obser-
vation that a fingerprint is a layered structure of ridges.
A numbering scheme is introduced that results in a
level number being assigned to each ridge. The neigh-
bor information together with the level number pro-
vide a basis for an intrinsic coordinate system against
which various features of the fingerprint are recorded.
Each ridge is encoded as a node in a graph, with
information, such as ridge length and the number and
type of associated minutiae, is included in the descrip-
tion of each node. The result is an encoded print with a
low sensitivity to rotation and elastic distortion, and
with a predictable, and often repairable, reaction to
dirt, scars and other sources of noise. Defects, such as
ridge breaks and ridge joins, can be recognized as
special patterns in the graph. Lakes, islands and other
special minutiae can also be recognized.
At the end of the encoding process, the problem of
matching two fingerprints reduces to one of matching
the corresponding graphs. The matching algorithm
consists of three stages: partitioning, refinement and
scoring. The first two stages are intended to reduce the
number of potential mappings for each node of the
graph. A scoring scheme based on matching minutiae
in the two graphs is then used as a measure of the
goodness of the match. A tree representing matching
nodes is grown in such a way as to maximize this score.
A number of tests of the proposed encoding and
matching algorithms have been conducted by the
authors on real-life fingerprints. They have shown that
the matching algorithm correctly locates matching
minutiae, whenever they exist. However, the score used
to indicate the goodness of a match between two prints
did not exhibit a sharp threshold separating positive
122 D.K. 1SENORand S. G. ZAKY

from negative matches. At least in part, this has been a
result of the small print areas used in the test. Also, very
little pre-processing was carried out to improve the
quality of the images. The ability of the proposed
encoding scheme to identify and repair different types
of noise can be used to improve the score profile. This
is currently being investigated.
REFERENCES
1. Fingerprints. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa,
Canada.
2. J.L. Muerle, C. W. Swonger and C. J. Tona, EDP security
through positive identification, Proc. 1974 Carnahan
Conf. on Crime Countermeasures, Univ. of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky (1974).
3. C.H. Bean and J. A. Prell, Personal Access Control, Proc.
1977 Carnahan Conf. on Crime Countermeasures, Univ. of
Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 15-17 (1977).
4. Lt. J. Woodard, Lt. J. Nelson. Lt. J. Ferrante and J.
Maier, Automated entry control: RADC technology
development results and future plans, Proc. 1981 Car-
nahan Conf. on Crime Countermeasures. Univ. of Ken-
tucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 77-82 (1981).
5. R. G. Bradley, Performance estimates for personnel
access control systems, Proc. 1981 Carnahan Conf. on
Crime Countermeasures. Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky, pp. 23-27 (1981).
6. M. Eleccion, Automatic fingerprint identification, Spec-
trum, pp. 36-45, Sept. (1973).
7. D. H. McMahon, G. L. Johnson, S. L. Teeter and C. G.
Whitney, A hybrid optical computer processing tech-
nique for fingerprint identification, IEEE Trans. Comp.
24 (4), 358-369 (1975).
8. K. Millard, An approach to the automatic retrieval of
latent fingerprints, Proc. 1975 Carnahan Conf. on Crime
Countermeasures, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, Ken-
tucky, pp. 45-51 (1975).
9. P. K. Shizume and C. G. Hefner, Jr, A computer
technical fingerprint search system, Proc. 1978 Carnahan
Conf. on Crime Countermeasures. Univ. of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 121-129 (1978).
10. T. K. Lindh, F. A. Ford and N. A. Boudreaux, An
automated fingerprint retrieval system, Proc. 1981 Car-
nahan Conf. on Crime Countermeasures, Univ. of Ken-
tucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 71-75 (1981).
l 1. R.P. Chiralo and L. L. Berdan, Adaptive digital enhance-
ment of latent fingerprints, Proc. 1978 Carnahan Conf. on
Crime Countermeasures. Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky, pp. 131-135 (1978).
12. C. B. Shelman and D. Hodges, A decimal Henry system,
Proc. 1973 Carnahan Conf. on Crime Countermeasures,
Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 213-220
(1973).
13. T.Ch. Malleswara Rao. Feature extraction for fingerprint
classification. Pattern Recognition, g, 181-192 (1976).
14. C. B. Shelman. Fingerprint classification--theory and
application, Proc. 1976 Carnahan Conf. on Crime Coun-
termeasures. Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington. Kentucky,
pp. 131-138 (1976).
15. V. K. Singh, L. Gyergyek and N. Pavesic, Feature
recognition and classification in fingerprint patterns,
Proc. 1977 Carnahan Conf. on Crime Countermeasures.
Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 241-248
(1977).
16. T. L Chang, Texture analysis ofdigitized fingerprints for
singularity detection. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Pattern
Recognition. Miami, Florida, pp. 478-480 (1980).
17. R. Bajscy, Matching of deformed images, Proc. 6th Int.
Conf. on Pattern Recognition. Munich, Germany, pp.
351-353 (1982).
18. D. K. Isenor, New algorithms for encoding and match-
ing fingerprints by computer, M.A.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (1984).
19. E. S. Deutsch, Thinning algorithms on rectangular,
hexagonal and triangular arrays, Comm. Ass. comput.
Mach. 15 (9), 827-837 (1972).
20. J. P. Riganati, An overview of algorithms employed in
automated fingerprint processing, Proc. 1977 Carnahan
Conf. on Crime Countermeasures, Univ. of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 125-131 (1977).
21. C.W. Swonger, Applications of fingerprint identification
technology to criminal identification and security sys-
tems, Proc. 1973 Carnahan Conf. on Crime Counter-
measures, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, pp.
190-212 (1973).
22. J.H. Wegstein, J. F. Rafferty and W. J. Pencak, Matching
fingerprints by computer, National Bureau of Standards
Technical Note 466, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. (1968).
23. J. H. Wegstein, Automated fingerprint identification,
National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 538, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1970).
24. J. H. Wegstein, The M40 Fingerprint Marcher, National
Bureau of Standards Technical Note 878, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., July (1975).
25. D. H. Ballard and C. M. Brown, Computer Vision.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1982).
26. R. C. Read and D. G. Corneil, The graph isomorphism
disease, J. Graph Theory 1,339-363 (t977):
27. D. G. Corneil, Graph isomorphism, Ph.D. Thesis, Tech-
nical Report No. 18, Dept ofComp. Sci., Univ. of Toronto,
Toronto (1970).
28. J. E. Hopcroft and J. K. Wong, Linear time algorithm for
isomorphism of planar graphs, Sixth Annual A C M Syrup.
on Theory of Computing. Seattle, May (1974).

About the Author--DONALD K. ISENORholds a B.Sc. degree from the Technical University of Nova Scotia
and an M.A.Sc. degree from the University of Toronto, both in Electrical Engineering. He is currently with
CEMCORP, Toronto, Canada.

About the Author--SAFWAT G. ZAKYis a Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, University
of Toronto. His research interests are in the areas of computer architecture, computer hardware and
computer communications. Prior tO joining University of Toronto, he was with Bell Northern Research,
Bramalea, Ontario, Canada, where he worked on applications of electro-optics and magnetics to mass
storage and telephone switching.
Dr. Zaky holds a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering and a B.Sc. in Mathematics, both from Cairo University.
He obtained his M.A.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of Toronto. He is a
member of IEEE and of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.