Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems

Science and Justice

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 91-98

  Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Forensic; Likelihood ratio; Precision; Reliability; Validity

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDITY; VOICE;

FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 80052260613     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.002     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 2005, 309:892-895. 10.1126/science.1111565.
2. National Research Council Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
3. Law Commission of England & Wales The admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. A New Approach to the Determination of Evidentiary Reliability 2009, Law Commission, London, UK, Retrieved April 2009 from:. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/expert_evidence.htm.
4. Morrison G.S. Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift. Science & Justice 2009, 49:298-308. 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.09.002.
5. Robertson B., Vignaux G.A. Interpreting Evidence 1995, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
6. Aitken C.G.G., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Forensic Evidence for Forensic Scientist 2004, Wiley, Chichester, UK. 2nd ed.
7. Balding D.J. Weight-of-evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles 2005, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
8. Buckleton J. A framework for interpreting evidence. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation 2005, 27-63. CRC, Boca Raton, FL. J. Buckleton, C.M. Triggs, S.J. Walsh (Eds.).
9. Champod C., Meuwly D. The inference of identity in forensic speaker recognition. Speech Communication 2000, 31:193-203. 10.1016/S0167-6393(99)00078-3.
10. Rose P. Forensic Speaker Identification 2002, Taylor and Francis London, UK.
11. Rose P. Technical forensic speaker recognition. Computer Speech and Language 2006, 20:159-191. 10.1016/j.csl.2005.07.003.
12. Morrison G.S. Forensic voice comparison. Expert Evidence 2010, Thomson Reuters, Sydney, Australia, ch. 99. I. Freckelton, H. Selby (Eds.).
13. Koehler J.J. Fingerprint error rates and proficiency tests: what are they and why do they matter. Hastings Law Journal 2008, 59:1077-1100.
14. Brümmer N., du Preez J. Application independent evaluation of speaker detection. Computer Speech and Language 2006, 20:230-275. 10.1016/j.csl.2005.08.001.
15. van Leeuwen D.A., Brümmer N. An introduction to application-independent evaluation of speaker recognition systems. Speaker Classification I: Selected Projects 2007, 330-353. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany. C. Müller (Ed.).
16. D. Ramos-Castro, J. González-Rodríguez, A. Montero-Asenjo, J. Ortega-García, Suspect-adapted map estimation of within-source distributions in generative likelihood ratio estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE Odyssey 2006 Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop, http://doi:10.1109/ODYSSEY.2006.248090.
17. González-Rodríguez J., Rose P., Ramos D., Toledano D.T., Ortega-García J. Emulating DNA: Rigorous quantification of evidential weight in transparent and testable forensic speaker recognition. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 2007, 15:2104-2115. 10.1109/TASL.2007.902747.
18. Morrison G.S., Kinoshita Y. Automatic-type calibration of traditionally derived likelihood ratios: forensic analysis of Australian English/o/formant trajectories. Proceedings of Interspeech 2008 Incorporating SST 2008 2008, 1501-1504. International Speech Communication Association.
19. Thiruvaran T., Ambikairajah E., Epps J. FM features for automatic forensic speaker recognition. Proceedings of Interspeech 2008 Incorporating SST 2008 2008, 1497-1500. International Speech Communication Association.
20. Morrison G.S. Likelihood-ratio forensic voice comparison using parametric representations of the formant trajectories of diphthongs. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2009, 125:2387-2397. 10.1121/1.3081384.
21. E. Enzinger, Characterising formant tracks in Viennese diphthongs for forensic speaker comparison. Proceedings of the 39th Audio Engineering Society Conference - Audio Forensics: Practices and Challenges, Hillerød, Denmark.
22. G.S. Morrison, Vowel inherent spectral change in forensic voice comparison, in G.S. Morrison, P. Assmann (Eds.), Vowel Inherent Spectral Change, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, in press.
23. Morrison G.S. Forensic voice comparison using likelihood ratios based on polynomial curves fitted to the formant trajectories of Australian English/aI/. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 2008, 15:247-264. 10.1558/ijsll.v15i2.249.
24. Aitken C.G.G., Lucy D. Evaluation of trace evidence in the form of multivariate data. Applied Statistics 2004, 54:109-122. 10.1046/j.0035-9254.2003.05271.x.
25. Curran J.M., Buckleton J.S., Triggs C.M., Weir B.S. Assessing uncertainty in DNA evidence caused by sampling effects. Science & Justice 2002, 42:29-37. 10.1016/S1355-0306(02)71794-2.
26. Curran J.M. An introduction to Bayesian credible intervals for sampling error in DNA profiles. Law, Probability and Risk 2005, 4:115-126. 10.1093/lpr/mgi009.
27. Rose P., Morrison G.S. A response to the UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 2009, 16:139-163. 10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.139.
28. A. Alexander, Forensic automatic speaker recognition using Bayesian interpretation and statistical compensation for mismatched conditions. PhD Dissertation, École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2005.
29. Bolstad W.M. Introduction to Bayesian Statistics 2007, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley. 2nd Ed.
30. G.S. Morrison, C. Zhang, P. Rose, An empirical estimate of the precision of likelihood ratios from a forensic-voice-comparison system. Forensic Science International (published online 4 December 2010), http://doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.11.001.
31. Morrison G.S., Thiruvaran T., Epps J. Estimating the precision of the likelihood-ratio output of a forensic-voice-comparison system. Proceedings of Odyssey 2010: The Language and Speaker Recognition Workshop 2010, 63-70. International Speech Communication Association, Brno, Czech Republic. H. Cernockỳ, L. Burget (Eds.).
32. Morrison G.S. A comparison of procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios from acoustic-phonetic data: Multvariate kernel density (MVKD) versus Gaussian mixture model - universal background model (GMM-UBM). Speech Communication 2011, 53:242-256. 10.1016/j.specom.2010.09.005.
33. Morrison G.S., Thiruvaran T., Epps J. An issue in the calculation of logistic-regression calibration and fusion weights for forensic voice comparison. Proceedings of the 13th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology 2010, 74-77. Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association, Melbourne. M. Tabain, J. Fletcher, D. Grayden, J. Hajek, A. Butcher (Eds.).
34. Reynolds D.A., Quatieri T.F., Dunn R.B. Speaker verification using adapted Gaussian mixture models. Digital Signal Processing 2000, 10:19-41. 10.1006/dspr.1999.0361.
35. Royall R. On the probability of observing misleading evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2000, 95:760-768. Stable URL:. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2669456.