{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02509760178471835, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.040404040404041, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Photographic comparison of surface topography as a viable solution when physical match is challenging

Physical matching methods are a family of well‐known methods that are utilized in order to determine whether two pieces of a tearable/breakable material used to be one object. When performing physical match of polymers, it is sometimes difficult to reach an unambiguous conclusion. This is due to various reasons. One is when the tear/fracture resides in an inaccessible or hidden‐from‐view region of the piece. Another is when the shape of the tear/fracture at the object's tear/fracture line is insufficient for deducing a complete match. Third is deficiency of material along this line. These are examples of processes where the line is affected so drastically, so that a match renders impossible. Specifically, when addressing elastic materials, the tear/fracture line may even be squashed. This may also be a reason for difficulty in performing a physical match. In this paper, a method is proposed where a match is alternatively achieved by means of photographic comparison of marks on the surface topography of the pieces‐in‐question. Comparisons of pairs of torn pieces of silicon rubber were made. The procedure involved photography of the surface topography the pieces. Then, the photographs were horizontally mirror‐flipped. Lastly, a comparison was made between two photographs: a photograph of one piece and a mirror‐flipped photograph of the opposite piece. The results show that after comparing the pieces to one another, only one unique pair turned out to be positively matched. Using the proposed method, not only the comparison is done by a more informative method (comparing to physical match), it is also more convenient, faster, less expensive, and technically simpler.