A statistical analysis and computational algorithm for comparing pairs of tool marks via profilometry data is described. Empirical validation of the method is established through experiments based on tool marks made at selected fixed angles from 50 sequentially manufactured screwdriver tips. Results obtained from three different comparison scenarios are presented and are in agreement with experiential knowledge possessed by practicing examiners. Further comparisons between scores produced by the algorithm and visual assessments of the same tool mark pairs by professional tool mark examiners in a blind study in general show good agreement between the algorithm and human experts. In specific instances where the algorithm had difficulty in assessing a particular comparison pair, results obtained during the collaborative study with professional examiners suggest ways in which algorithm performance may be improved. It is concluded that the addition of contextual information when inputting data into the algorithm should result in better performance. ABSTRACT: A statistical analysis and computational algorithm for comparing pairs of tool marks via profilometry data is described. This analysis is superior to ad hoc comparisons based

This study introduces a tool mark analysis approach based upon 3D scans of screwdriver tip and marked plate surfaces at the micrometer scale from an optical microscope. An open-source 3D graphics software package is utilized to simulate the marking process as the projection of the tip's geometry in the direction of tool travel. The edge of this projection becomes a virtual tool mark that is compared to cross-sections of the marked plate geometry using the statistical likelihood algorithm introduced by Chumbley et al. In a study with both sides of six screwdriver tips and 34 corresponding marks, the method distinguished known matches from known nonmatches with zero false-positive matches and two false-negative matches. For matches, it could predict the correct marking angle within ±5-10°. Individual comparisons could be made in seconds on a desktop computer, suggesting that the method could save time for examiners.

No abstract

No abstract