Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis

Abstract When a fingerprint is located at a crime scene, a human examiner is counted upon to manually compare this print to those stored in a database. Several experiments have now shown that these professional analysts are highly accurate, but not infallible, much like other fields that involve hig...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jason M. Tangen, Kirsty M. Kent, Rachel A. Searston
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2020-05-01
Series:Cognitive Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41235-020-00223-8
id doaj-c350757e759a415391f5e3b39a571b40
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c350757e759a415391f5e3b39a571b402020-11-25T03:33:18ZengSpringerOpenCognitive Research2365-74642020-05-01511710.1186/s41235-020-00223-8Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysisJason M. Tangen0Kirsty M. Kent1Rachel A. Searston2School of Psychology, The University of QueenslandSchool of Psychology, The University of QueenslandSchool of Psychology, The University of AdelaideAbstract When a fingerprint is located at a crime scene, a human examiner is counted upon to manually compare this print to those stored in a database. Several experiments have now shown that these professional analysts are highly accurate, but not infallible, much like other fields that involve high-stakes decision-making. One method to offset mistakes in these safety-critical domains is to distribute these important decisions to groups of raters who independently assess the same information. This redundancy in the system allows it to continue operating effectively even in the face of rare and random errors. Here, we extend this “wisdom of crowds” approach to fingerprint analysis by comparing the performance of individuals to crowds of professional analysts. We replicate the previous findings that individual experts greatly outperform individual novices, particularly in their false-positive rate, but they do make mistakes. When we pool the decisions of small groups of experts by selecting the decision of the majority, however, their false-positive rate decreases by up to 8% and their false-negative rate decreases by up to 12%. Pooling the decisions of novices results in a similar drop in false negatives, but increases their false-positive rate by up to 11%. Aggregating people’s judgements by selecting the majority decision performs better than selecting the decision of the most confident or the most experienced rater. Our results show that combining independent judgements from small groups of fingerprint analysts can improve their performance and prevent these mistakes from entering courts.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41235-020-00223-8Collective intelligenceWisdom of crowdsExpertiseFingerprintsForensic science
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jason M. Tangen
Kirsty M. Kent
Rachel A. Searston
spellingShingle Jason M. Tangen
Kirsty M. Kent
Rachel A. Searston
Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis
Cognitive Research
Collective intelligence
Wisdom of crowds
Expertise
Fingerprints
Forensic science
author_facet Jason M. Tangen
Kirsty M. Kent
Rachel A. Searston
author_sort Jason M. Tangen
title Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis
title_short Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis
title_full Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis
title_fullStr Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis
title_full_unstemmed Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis
title_sort collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis
publisher SpringerOpen
series Cognitive Research
issn 2365-7464
publishDate 2020-05-01
description Abstract When a fingerprint is located at a crime scene, a human examiner is counted upon to manually compare this print to those stored in a database. Several experiments have now shown that these professional analysts are highly accurate, but not infallible, much like other fields that involve high-stakes decision-making. One method to offset mistakes in these safety-critical domains is to distribute these important decisions to groups of raters who independently assess the same information. This redundancy in the system allows it to continue operating effectively even in the face of rare and random errors. Here, we extend this “wisdom of crowds” approach to fingerprint analysis by comparing the performance of individuals to crowds of professional analysts. We replicate the previous findings that individual experts greatly outperform individual novices, particularly in their false-positive rate, but they do make mistakes. When we pool the decisions of small groups of experts by selecting the decision of the majority, however, their false-positive rate decreases by up to 8% and their false-negative rate decreases by up to 12%. Pooling the decisions of novices results in a similar drop in false negatives, but increases their false-positive rate by up to 11%. Aggregating people’s judgements by selecting the majority decision performs better than selecting the decision of the most confident or the most experienced rater. Our results show that combining independent judgements from small groups of fingerprint analysts can improve their performance and prevent these mistakes from entering courts.
topic Collective intelligence
Wisdom of crowds
Expertise
Fingerprints
Forensic science
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41235-020-00223-8
work_keys_str_mv AT jasonmtangen collectiveintelligenceinfingerprintanalysis
AT kirstymkent collectiveintelligenceinfingerprintanalysis
AT rachelasearston collectiveintelligenceinfingerprintanalysis
_version_ 1724563424819544064