Technical Note

The Etiology of ACE-V and its Proper Use:

An Exploration of the Relationship Between
ACE-V and the Scientific Method of
Hypothesis Testing

Michele Triplett 1
Lauren Cooney 2

Abstract: ACE-V is commonly described as the scientific method-

ology that fingerprint practitioners use to individualize friction skin
impressions, including both tenprint and latent print examinations.
This paper looks at the history of ACE-V, analyzes whether a clear
understanding of ACE-V exists, gives a brief description of how ACE-
V should be used, and looks at the repercussions of incorrectly using
ACE-V. Recognizing the misconceptions about ACE-V is the first step
in establishing a comprehensive grasp of this process, which in turn
will result in practitioners reaching the best possible conclusions.

History of ACE-V

Huber initially discussed ACE-V in 1959 [1]. The purpose

of Huber’s message was to describe the philosophy of science
and the correct use of the scientific method [2]. “The scientific
method” is a phrase that has been used to describe the scientific
methodology of hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing is by no
means the only way scientists arrive at their scientific conclu-
sions [3], but its use has become so common that hypothesis
testing has become labeled by some as the scientific method.

Received September 15, 2005; accepted November 4, 2005

1
King County Sheriff ’s Off ice, Seattle, WA
2
Lockheed Martin, Department of Defense Support Contractor,
Clarksburg, WV
Journal of Forensic Identification
56 (3), 2006 \ 345
 Hypothesis testing is a scientific method for guiding scientific
research and arriving at scientific conclusions. It entails collect-
ing data, testing the data, arriving at conclusions, and ensuring
that the data and the procedures that are used are left open for
peers to review. The main purpose of hypothesis testing is to
show the existence of justification to support a conclusion. Using
this systematic form of reasoning ensures that the conclusions
are the best conclusions possible, given the available data. To be
certain that results are sound and supported, it is important to
have data that are observable, testable, reproducible, and falsifi-
able. Using accepted practices and procedures and documenting
anything that is not obvious to the average practitioner will help
avoid unwanted criticism of conclusions. Diminishing potential
biases will assist in making the results as objective as possible.
One way to do this is to account for all the data collected, not
just the data that confirms ideas or conclusions. Reproducing
a conclusion alone does not equate to a scientific conclusion.
For a conclusion to be considered scientific, a person must have
reproducible results as well as have used sound reasoning and
appropriate practices and principles to arrive at the conclusion.
The overwhelming popularity of hypothesis testing is due to the
reliability of the results when the process is used correctly.

Huber descr ibed hy pothesis testing as it related to the

comparative sciences. He used the words analyze, compare, and
evaluate (better known as ACE) to describe this philosophy and
also noted that verification was needed [4]. Over the years, this
terminology was used by various fields but was not known to
the fingerprint community until 1979, when it was introduced
by Ashbaugh, who referred to it as ACE-V [5]. ACE-V was used
for nearly the next twenty years on a relatively small scale. In
1998, with the advent of the first Daubert hearing on fingerprint
evidence, the members of the fingerprint community recognized
the need to better articulate how they arrived at their conclu-
sions, and ACE-V gained widespread recognition.

Accepting ACE-V as a methodology came easily to the finger-

print community, but understanding it seems to be taking a little
more time. This is evident by reading the various descriptions of
ACE-V that have been published by different organizations [6, 7,
8]. If different organizations describe ACE-V differently, then it
would follow that people are using it differently and hence may
not be appropriately using it as a scientific method.

Journal of Forensic Identification

346 / 56 (3), 2006
Proper Use of ACE-V

Associating ACE-V with hypothesis testing (Figure 1) demon-

strates that analysis is the section of hypothesis testing where
information or data (e.g., different levels of detail available,
clarity, tolerance, distortion) are collected. The comparison
phase is the section of hypothesis testing where a hypothesis is
tested. Normally this is done by comparing different features
in the known and unknown print. In science, other forms of
testing are also accepted and highly valued, some of which will
be discussed later. Once adequate testing is complete, a full
evaluation of the information is done and a supported conclusion
is arrived at. The final step needed to conform to an appropriate
scientific method is to leave all information, data, processes,
and conclusions open for peer review. Huber referred to this
as verification, although he was not the first person to use this
term in science [9].

Hypothesis Testing ACE-V

Collect data Analysis
Testing phase Comparison
Conclusion Evaluation
Peer review Verification

Figure 1
Associating ACE-V with hypothesis testing.

Problems with the Word Verification

T he re a re seve r al p ot e nt ial proble m s w it h t he word

verif ication. First, the word verification can be synonymous
with confirmation. The purpose of confirmation, by definition,
would be to uphold the initial examiner’s conclusion. Proper
peer review is not about upholding a prior conclusion, even
though that happens to be the most frequent outcome. The
purpose of peer review is to thoroughly attempt to falsify the
original examiner’s conclusion or how it was arrived at [10].
The word verification may lead people to have a false sense of
understanding regarding ACE-V.
Journal of Forensic Identification
56 (3), 2006 \ 347
 Another problem with the word verification is that this word
is already used in science to indicate a testing procedure [11, 12].
Some different ways of testing hypotheses include independent
examinations, blind verifications, or double-blind verifications.
Generally speaking, these testing methods are more useful in
difficult matters that are inherently more subjective. This type
of verification is done during the testing phase (the comparison
stage of ACE-V) and is done prior to making a conclusion (the
evaluation stage of ACE-V) [11, 12]. The use of the word verifi-
cation in place of peer review confuses the testing phase with
the peer review phase, eliminating peer review altogether.

The third problem with the word verification is the common

belief that verif ication should be done blindly. The testing
process, which traditional sciences use and call verification or
confirmation, is a process that is done blindly. This is done to
ensure an unbiased testing process and is part of the testing
phase of the scientific method (the comparison phase of ACE-
V). The verification phase of ACE-V (the peer review phase)
cannot be done completely blind because this would violate the
peer review process by not allowing the verifier to look at how
the practitioner arrived at the conclusion.

Proper Peer Review

Peer review has a very important place in science. The main

goal of peer review is to look at how a conclusion was arrived at,
not merely to confirm the conclusion [13]. In order to examine
whether scientific principles were used, the peer review phase
requires that the peer reviewer see all the infor mation and
documentation that the initial practitioner used to arrive at his
or her conclusion, even if the reviewer would not have arrived at
the conclusion in this same way. The reasoning is that the goal of
peer review is not to reinvent a conclusion but to assess whether
a conclusion was arrived at accurately, using procedures that
are tested and accepted. During the last couple of decades, the
need to understand this concept has been seen at the most basic
levels of science. “Show your work” has become an educational
requirement, not simply a recommendation [14]. By doing so, it
can be determined whether a practitioner, in any field, arrived
at his or her conclusion through acceptable procedures. In order
to reduce bias, the peer review process should be done from an
impartial and independent perspective.

Journal of Forensic Identification

348 / 56 (3), 2006
 It is important to note that, contrary to popular belief, all
scientif ic conclusions are not peer reviewed [15]. To ensure
that conclusions conform to an appropriate scientific method,
conclusions do not always need to be peer reviewed, but they
need to be peer reviewable. The same can be said for other
elements of hypothesis testing as well. Not all conclusions need
to have documentation of how they were arrived at, especially
in the case of simple and routine tasks, but they do need to be
documentable if anyone should want to see this information.
Documentation should always be included if any component of
the data or the examination is not clearly apparent to the average
practitioner. Even though peer review is not always performed
in scientific discovery, it is an industry standard of the finger-
print community [6]. The fingerprint community realizes the
repercussions of its conclusions and requires that this phase of
the scientific method be fulfilled. The Scientific Working Group
on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study, and Technology states, “All
individualizations (identifications) must be verified.” [6]

Hypothesis Testing / ACE-V Components

a) Observe characteristics, contrast, smearing, pressure, amount
Step 1 Collect data
of clarity, tolerance, orientation, double impressions, color of
(Analyze)
ridges, amount of level 1, 2 and 3 detail, etc.
a) Comparison phase.
b) During this phase, the practitioner is forming a preliminary
conclusion to test but is not coming to a definitive conclusion.
This preliminary conclusion can change depending on the test
results.
c) All testing is done prior to making a decisive conclusion.
Step 2 Test data
d) Different methods can be used to test the hypothesis. These
(Compare)
methods include, but are not limited to:
- looking for common characteristics with the same spatial
relationship
- blind verification
- predictions of new data
- attempts to falsify the hypothesis
a) Look at the entirety of information that has been collected and
tested to come to a conclusion.
Step 3 Come to a conclusion b) Answer two questions:
(Evaluate) -Is the information observed in the prints being compared in
agreement?
-Is there enough information to individualize?
a) Ensure that scientific principles and procedures were used.
Step 4 Peer review
b) Try to falsify.
(Verification)
c) Impartial/independent participant.

Figure 2
Components of the ACE-V methodology.

Journal of Forensic Identification

56 (3), 2006 \ 349
 It may appear from Figure 2 that ACE-V is a linear process,
but this is far from the truth. At various times, a practitioner may
need to reanalyze the original data, perhaps collect additional
data, change the hypothesis, and start the testing process over
again. This cyclical course may be required several times before
a conclusion is arrived at. In some cases, it is hard to tell when
one step stops and another begins. Even after hypotheses are
tested, peer reviewed, and universally accepted as scientific
theories, they are still tested in the sense that they must hold
up to the demands of practical application in our ever-changing
world. An example of how the steps are intertwined is shown
with Newton’s Law of Gravity. Newton’s Law of Gravity was
tested, peer reviewed, and accepted by most people as infallible
for more than 200 years. In the early 1900s, Einstein concluded
that Newton’s law was only true in certain situations, establish-
ing the Theory of Relativity. Some may claim that the f law in
Newton’s law was discovered well after the testing phase, the
conclusion phase, and the peer review phase. It is also important
to note that hypothesis testing is not always explained in four
steps, as above. It can be broken down and explained in a variety
of ways. Figure 2 simply compares hypothesis testing with ACE-
V, which is generally described in four steps.

Different Explanations of ACE-V

Many sources have described the verification process of ACE-

V to be a repeat of the ACE process done by another examiner
[6, 7, 8, 16, 17]. Although the repeated application of ACE can
be deemed as acceptable in science, this usually applies to
very simplistic conclusions where the process used to arrive
at a conclusion can be taken for granted. Although this may
be applicable to many fingerprint comparisons where both the
known and unknown prints are exceptionally clear and full of
detail, a complete understanding of scientific methodology must
be attained in order to know when the repeated application of
ACE is adequate or when a complete peer review of the analysis
is needed.

Other sources describe verification as a confirmation of the

original examiner’s conclusion [18, 19]. As discussed earlier,
peer review is about scrutiny, not confirmation. Confirmation,
of the process and conclusion, is just one possible result of the
peer review process.

Journal of Forensic Identification

350 / 56 (3), 2006
 Many of these same sources indicate that verification should
be done blindly, without the knowledge of the original examiner’s
conclusion [7, 19, 20, 21]. It is important to ensure that the verifi-
cation process is done without bias, but this is accomplished by
using an impartial or independent verifier, not a verifier without
adequate information. It is essential that the peer reviewer be
given all of the initial examiner’s information and conclusions so
that the reviewer can look at the process that was used to arrive
at the conclusion.

Several sources proclaim that the verification stage of ACE-V

is a testing stage. It is important to understand that, although the
peer review process does test the conclusion, it is not a testing
phase within itself. These statements not only show a lack of
understanding of scientific methodology, but they also show a
misunderstanding of how ACE-V relates to scientific methodol-
ogy.

Consequences of Misunderstanding ACE-V

If practitioners are describing ACE-V differently, it would

follow that practitioners are using it differently. If practitioners
are using it differently, then the error rate may be different for
each different type of application. It has been commonplace in
the fingerprint industry to say that this methodology is 100%
accurate if applied correctly and therefore all errors are practi-
tioner errors. This statement should be looked at in a couple of
different respects.

Rudin and Inman state, “It is impossible to separate the analyst

from the method; the instrument is the examiner’s brain and her
decision-making process is the method.” [22] It is impossible to
separately test the methodology and scientifically support the
assertion that the error rate of the methodology is zero when the
methodology cannot actually be tested without the involvement
of an examiner.

One of the problems with misunderstanding how ACE-V is

synonymous with hypothesis testing is in establishing an error
rate. Hypothesis testing has been used for hundreds of years
(some say thousands of years) with very reliable results [23]. The
success rate is so high that this type of scientific knowledge is
sometimes called the supreme form of knowledge. Even if this
Journal of Forensic Identification
56 (3), 2006 \ 351
is true, no scientist has ever claimed the error rate of hypoth-
esis testing is zero [24]. Hypothesis testing is a self-correcting
system. Science does not hold itself in such a high regard as to
claim its results are absolutely conclusive [3, 4, 15]. Scientific
conclusions are considered to be the best conclusions possible
because they are well substantiated by the observational data
available and they were arrived at through appropriate scientific
practices. All conclusions are continually open to further testing
and better conclusions.

Another part of this statement to analyze is “all errors are

practitioner errors”. If practitioners are unclear of the meaning
and interpretation of ACE-V, then one cannot be sure they are
using it correctly or using it as a scientific method. Practitioners
can only apply this methodology correctly if they have an in-
depth understanding of it. A lack of understanding will inevitably
lead to mistakes. The practitioner alone cannot be blamed for
these mistakes. The industry must take some responsibility in
ensuring that practitioners are competently trained in scientific
methodology. If different organizations describe ACE-V differ-
ently, then it can only be assumed that practitioners are being
trained differently. Should the correct use of the methodology
be assumed or should it be tested, as with annual proficiency
testing or certification programs? Where is the correct way to
apply ACE-V to be found? Even if practitioners are coming
to correct conclusions, it should not be assumed that correct
methodology is being used.

Conclusions

The correct way to use hypothesis testing and ACE-V has been
articulated in several sources, although more so with hypothesis
testing. Huber used the terms analyze, compare, evaluate, and
verify to describe the philosophy of science [1, 4]. He noted that
science is both a process and an end result. Giving too much
weight to the conclusion and not enough weight to the process
ref lects a lack of understanding of the role and endeavor of
experts “which shows little evidence of diminishing” [4]. More
than 40 years later, this statement still holds true.

Ashbaugh stated, “Verification is a form of peer review and

is part of most sciences. Many organizations erroneously use
verification as a method of protecting against errors in place of

Journal of Forensic Identification

352 / 56 (3), 2006
adequate training. While verification may prevent the occasional
error, its purpose is to verify process and objectivity as opposed
to only check results. It is also an excellent vehicle for train-
ing.” [13]

It would be impossible to completely describe every element

of hypothesis testing in one paper. As with any scientif ic
endeavor, one question leads to another and the process can
become increasingly more difficult to understand (e.g., how the
ACE-V process contains a separate hypothesis testing process
within each element). This paper describes hypothesis testing
at its most basic level and shows how ACE-V is synonymous
with hypothesis testing. A more in-depth understanding of
scientific methodology can be found by reading the works of
well-known scientists and philosophers such as Aristotle, Isaac
Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, and Karl Popper, to
name just a few. The overall lack of understanding regarding
scientific methodology does not only apply to the fingerprint
field. McComas [3, 15] has dispelled the myths of many educated
scientists who do not understand these concepts.

When ACE-V is used inappropriately, errors in individual-

ization can and will occur [21, 25]. ACE-V is a valid scientific
method if it is used as a valid scientific method. Practitioners
in this field need a clear understanding of how ACE-V relates
to hypothesis testing so they can properly use it and explain it.
Acknowledging that a universal understanding of ACE-V does
not exist is the first step in acquiring a comprehensive under-
standing of this process.

For further information, please contact:

Michele Triplett
King County Sheriff ’s Office
AFIS - Latent Lab
516 3rd Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
[email protected]
Lauren Cooney
DoD ABIS, Biometrics Fusion Center
347 West Main Street
Clarksburg, WV 26301
[email protected]

Journal of Forensic Identification

56 (3), 2006 \ 353
References

1. Huber, R. Expert Witness. The Criminal Law Quarterly

1959-1960, 2, 276-295.
2. Huber, R. Assistant Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted
Police (retired), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Personal cor-
respondence, 2004.
3. McComas, W. F. Ten Myths of Science: Re-examining What
We Think We Know. School Science & Mathematics January
1996, 96, 10.
4. Huber, R. I.A.I. Document Seminar - St. Louis, Missouri.
Ident. News 1962, 12 (11), 5-13.
5. Ashbaugh, D. R. Forensic Ridgeology Course Study Notes.
Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission,
February 2002, p 279.
6. Guidelines for Friction Ridge Examination Methodology for
Latent Print Examiners, ver. 1.01, SWGFAST: Quantico, VA,
2002.
7. Method of Finger print Identification. Inter pol European
Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification (IEEGFI II).
www.interpol.int/Public/Forensic/fingerprints/
WorkingParties/IEEGFI2 (accessed July 2005).
8. ACE-V Methodology Excursion Verification. Chesapeake Bay
Division of the International Association for Identification.
www.cbdiai.org/ACEV/methodology.html (accessed July
2005).
9. Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery; Harper and
Row: New York, N.Y., 1959; p 251.
10. Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery; Harper and
Row: New York, N.Y., 1959; p 252.
11. Nordby, J. Dr. Forensic Medicine Exper t, Exper t Final
Analysis Forensics (consulting firm), University Place, WA.
Personal correspondence, 2005.
12. Fu lton, W. Science Cu r r icu lu m Specialist, A rk a nsa s
Department of Education. Personal correspondence, 2005.
13. Beeton, M. Friction Ridge Identification Process Proposed
Scientific Methodology. Weekly Detail, February 18, 2002,
Issue 28. (Available online at www.clpex.com).
14. N a t i o n a l A s s e s s m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s
( NA EP). Framework for the Assessment.
www.nagb.org/pubs/math_framework/ch2.html, (accessed
July 2005).
15. McComas, W. F. The Principle Elements of the Nature of
Science: Dispelling the Myths. www.usc.edu/dept/education/
science-edu/Myths%20of %20Science.pdf, (accessed July
2005).

Journal of Forensic Identification

354 / 56 (3), 2006
16. United States v Byron Mitchell. US District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case number 96-00407.
Government’s Combined Report to the Court and Motions in
Limine Concerning Fingerprint Evidence dated September
13, 1999.
17. United States of America v Carlos Ivan Llera Plaza, Wilfredo
Martinez Acosta, and Victor Rodriguez. US District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case number 98-
362-10, 11, 12. Court’s Opinion dated January 7, 2002.
18. SWGFAST Glossar y, ver. 1, SWGFAST: Quantico, VA,
2002.
19. Tuthill, H. G.; Graeme, G. Individualization: Principles and
Procedures in Criminalistics, 2nd ed.; Lightning Powder
Company, Inc.: Jacksonville, Florida, 2002; p 98, 161.
20. Champod, C.; Len na rd, C.; Ma rgot, P.; Stoilovic, M.
Fingerprints and Other Ridge Skin Impressions; Robertson,
J., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida, 2004; pp 39-40.
21. St a c ey, R . B. Re p o r t on t he E r r one ou s Fi nge r p r i nt
Individualization in the Mad r id Train Bombing Case.
For. Sci. Comm. 2005, 7 (1), 2005. (Available online at
www.f bi.gov/publications.htm.)
22. Rudin, N.; Inman, K. Finger prints in Print, the Sequel.
CAC News, 2nd Quarter 2005, pp 6-10. (Available online at
www.cacnews.org.)
23. W i k i p e d i a . H i s t o r y o f t h e S c i e n t i f i c M e t h o d .
en.wikipedi.org/wiki/History _of_the_scientific_method
(accessed February 2006).
24. Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery; Harper and
Row: New York, N.Y., 1959; p 33.
25. Triplett, M. Fingerprint Terms “Erroneous Identifications”.
www.nwlean.net/fprints/.htm (accessed July 2005).

Journal of Forensic Identification

56 (3), 2006 \ 355