Decision analysis in forensic science

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 894-905

  Taroni, Franco ^a   Bozza, Silvia ^b   Aitken, Colin ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayes theorem; Decision analysis; Evaluation; Forensic science; Interpretation; Kinship determination; Scientific evidence; Utility

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; DECISION MAKING; FORENSIC MEDICINE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MOLECULAR MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS MODEL; REVIEW;

EID: 21444432130     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1520/jfs2004443     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA, McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation and the structure and content of statements. Sci & Justice 2000;40:233-39.
2. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science & Justice 1998;38:151-56.
3. Savage LJ. The theory of statistical decision. J Am Statistical Assoc 1951;March:55-67.
4. Henrion M, Breese JS, Horvitz J. Decision analysis and expert systems. AI Magazine 1991;Winter:64-91.
5. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci & Justice 1998;38:231-39.
6. Taroni F, Atiken CGG, Garbolino P. De Finetti's subjectivism, the assessment of probabilities and the evaluation of evidence: a commentary for forensic scientist. Sci & Justice 2001;41:145-50.
7. Mondadori M. Introduzione. In: Lindley DV, editor. La logica della decisione. Milano:Il Saggiatore, 1990;IX-XVII.
8. De Finetti B. Il ruolo della probabilità nei diversi atteggiamenti nel pensiero scientifico. In: Probabilità e induzione. Bologna:Clueb Editrice, 1993;229-248.
9. Wald A. Statistical decision functions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1950.
10. Lindley DV. Introduction to probability and statistics from a Bayesian point of view. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
11. Piccinato L. Metodi per le decisioni statistiche. Milano: Springer-Verlag, 1996.
12. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
13. Lindley DV. Making decisions. 2nd rev.ed. London. John Wiley & Sons, 1985.
14. Press SJ. Bayesian statistics: principles, models, and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989.
15. Holsinger K. http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/ decision/decision.html
16. Kaye DH. Clarifying the burden of persuasion: what Bayesian decision rules do and do not do. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 1999;3:1-28.
17. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. British Medical Journal 1995;310:452-54.
18. Fung WK, Carracedo A, Hu Y-Q. Testing for kinship in a subdivided population. Forensic Sci Int 2003;135:105-9.
19. Triggs CM, Buckleton JS. Logical implications of applying the principles of population genetics to the interpretation of DNA profiling evidence. Forensic Sci Int 2002;128:108-14.
20. Balding DJ, Nichols RA. A method for quantifying differentiation between populations at multi-allelic loci and its implications for investigating identity and paternity. In: Weir BS, editor. Human identification: the use of DNA markers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995;3-12.
21. Hummel K. Biostatistical opinion of parentage based upon the results of blood group tests. In: Schmidt P, editor. Biostatistische Abstammungs- begutachtung mit Blutgruppenbefunden. Stuttgart: Gustav Fisher, 1971
22. (Quoted in Family Law Quarterly 1976;10:262).
23. Hummel K. Selection of gene frequency tables. In: Walker RH, editor. Inclusion probabilities in parentage testing. Arlington: Am Assoc Blood Banks, 1983;231-43.
24. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. 2nd rev. ed. Chichester: Wiley & Sons, 2004.
25. Clemen RT. Making hard decision. 2nd rev. ed. Belmont: Duxbury Press, 1996.
26. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. Probability - The logic of the law. Oxford J Legal Studies 1993;13:457-78.
27. Aitken CGG, Gammerman A. Probabilistic reasoning in evidential assessment. J Forensic Sci Soc 1989;29:303-16.
28. Dawid AP, Evett IW. Using a graphical model to assist the evaluation of complicated patterns of evidence. J Forensic Sci 1997;42:226-31.
29. Garbolino P, Taroni F. Evaluation of scientific evidence using Bayesian networks. Forensic Science International 2002;125:149-55.
30. Evett IW, Gill P, Jackson G, Whitaker J, Champod C. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. J Forensic Sci 2002;47:520-30.
31. Aitken CGG, Taroni F, Garbolino P. A graphical model for the evaluation of cross-transfer evidence in DNA profiles. Theoretical Population Biology 2003;63:179-90.
32. Dawid AP, Mortera J, Pascali V, van Boxel D. Probabilistic expert systems for forensic inference from genetic markers. Scandinavian J Statistics 2002;29:577-95.
33. Mortera J, Dawid AP, Lauritzen SL. Probabilistic expert systems for DNA mixture profiling. Theoretical Population Biology 2003;63:191-205.
34. Taroni F, Biedermann A, Garbolino P, Aitken CGG. A general approach to Bayesian networks for the interpretation of evidence. Forensic Sci Int 2004;139:5-16.
35. Wigmore J. The science of proof: as given by logic, psychology and general experience and illustrated in judicial trials. 3rd rev.ed. Boston: Little Brown, 1937.
36. Kadane JB, Schum DA. A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
37. Thagard P. Why wasn't O.J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference. Cognition and Emotion 2003;17:361-83.