Using subsampling to estimate the strength of handwriting evidence via score-based likelihood ratios

Forensic Science International

Volumn 216, Issue 1-3, 2012, Pages 146-157

  Davis, Linda J ^a   Saunders, Christopher P ^b   Hepler, Amanda ^b,d   Buscaglia, JoAnn ^c  

^a George Mason University   (United States)

^b GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c FBI LABORATORY   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Forensic document comparison; Forensic science; Handwriting evidence; Likelihood ratio; Statistical evidence evaluation; Subsampling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; HANDWRITING; LEGAL EVIDENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING; SCORE BASED LIKELIHOOD RATIO; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SUBSAMPLING;

EID: 84857506569     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.09.013     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. National Research Council of the National Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
2. Evett I.W., Weir B.S. Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists 1998, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
3. Foreman L.A., Champod C., Evett I.W., Lambert J.A., Pope S. Interpreting DNA evidence: a review. Int. Stat. Rev. 2003, 71:473-495.
4. Good I.J. Weight of evidence and the Bayesian likelihood ratio. The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science 1991, 85-106. E. Horwood, New York. C.G.G. Aitken, D.A. Stoney (Eds.).
5. Aitken C.G.G., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists 2004, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England. 2nd ed.
6. Robertson B., Vignaux G.A. Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom 1995, Chichester, England, John Wiley & Sons.
7. Champod C., Meuwly D. The inference of identity in forensic speaker recognition. Speech Commun. 2000, 31:193-203.
8. Champod C., Evett I.W., Kuchler B. Earmarks as evidence: a critical review. J. Forensic Sci. 2001, 46:1275-1284.
9. Neumann C., Champod C., Puch-Solis R., Egli N., Anthonioz A., Bromage-Griffiths A. Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of any number of minutiae. J. Forensic Sci. 2007, 52:54-64.
10. Champod C., Evett I.W. A probabilistic approach to fingerprint evidence. J. Forensic Ident. 2001, 51:101-122.
11. Evett I.W., Lambert J.A., Buckleton J.S. A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework. Sci. Justice 1998, 38:241-247.
12. Curran J.M. The statistical interpretation of forensic glass evidence. Int. Stat. Rev. 2003, 71:497-520.
13. Aitken C.G.G., Lucy D. Evaluation of trace evidence in the form of multivariate data. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C: Appl. Stat. 2004, 53:109-122.
14. Bozza S., Taroni F., Marquis R., Schmittbuhl M. Probabilistic evaluation of handwriting evidence: likelihood ratio for authorship. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C: Appl. Stat. 2008, 57:329-341.
15. Marquis R., Bozza S., Schmittbuhl M., Taroni F. Handwriting evidence evaluation based on the shape of characters: application of multivariate likelihood ratios. J. Forensic Sci. 2011, 56:S238-S242.
16. Cook R., Evett I.W., Jackson G., Jones P.J., Lambert J.A. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci. Justice 1998, 38:231-239.
17. Evett I.W., Jackson G., Lambert J.A. More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Sci. Justice 2000, 40:3-10.
18. Evett I.W. Interpretation: a personal odyssey. The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science 1991, 9-22. E. Horwood, New York. C.G.G. Aitken, D.A. Stoney (Eds.).
19. Dujardin B., Van den Ende J., Van Gompel A., Unger J.-P., Van der Stuyft P. Likelihood ratios: a real improvement for clinical decision making?. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 1994, 10:29-36.
20. Fritz J.M., Wainner R.S. Examining diagnostic tests: an evidence-based perspective. Phys. Ther. 2001, 81:1546-1564.
21. Brown M.D., Reeves M.J. Interval likelihood ratios: another advantage for the evidence-based diagnostician. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2003, 42:292-297.
22. Meuwly D. Forensic individualisation from biometric data. Sci. Justice 2006, 46:205-213.
23. Meier P., Zabell S. Benjamin Peirce and the Howland will. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1980, 75:497-506.
24. Evett I.W., Jackson G., Lambert J.A., McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Sci. Justice 2000, 40:233-239.
25. Balding D.J. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles 2005, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
26. Srihari S.N., Cha S.-H., Arora H., Lee S. Individuality of handwriting. J. Forensic Sci. 2002, 47:856-872.
27. Srihari S.N., Beal M.J., Bandi K., Shah V. A statistical model for writer verification. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition 2005, 1105-1109.
28. Srinivasan H., Kabra S., Huang C., Srihari S. On computing strength of evidence for writer verification. Ninth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition 2007, 844-848.
29. Huber R.A., Headrick A.M. Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals 1999, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
30. Champod C., Evett I.W., Jackson G. Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions. Sci. Justice 2004, 44:153-164.
31. Saunders C.P., Davis L.J., Lamas A.C., Miller J.J., Gantz D.T. Construction and evaluation of classifiers for forensic document analysis. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2011, 5:381-399.
32. Walch M.A., Gantz D.T. Pictographic matching: a graph-based approach towards a language independent document exploitation platform. Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Hardcopy Document Processing 2004, 53-62. Association of Computing Machinery, Washington, DC. K. Lubbes, M. Ronthaler (Eds.).
33. Gantz D.T., Miller J.J., Walch M.A. Multi-language handwriting derived biometric identification. SDIUT 2005 Conference Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on Document Image Understanding Technology 2005, 197-209.
34. M.A. Walch, Image recognition system, US Patent 5,267,332 (1993).
35. M.A. Walch, Systems and methods for identifying characters and words in a document, US Patent 7,724,956 (2010).
36. M.A. Walch, Systems and methods for biometric identification using handwriting recognition, US Patent 7,724,958 (2010).
37. Thompson W.A. The Nature of Statistical Evidence 2007, Springer, New York.
38. Bensefia A., Paquet T., Heutte L. A writer identification and verification system. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2005, 26:2080-2092.
39. Scott D.W. Multivariate Density Estimation: Theory, Practice, and Visualization 1992, Wiley, New York.
40. Everitt B.S. The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 3rd ed.
41. Royall R.M. Statistical Evidence: A Likelihood Paradigm 1997, Chapman & Hall, London.
42. Tsou T.-S., Royall R.M. Robust likelihoods. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1995, 90:316-320.
43. Kass R.E., Raftery A.E. Bayes factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1995, 90:773-795.
44. Lindley D.V. A problem in forensic science. Biometrika 1977, 64:207-213.