Information-theoretical assessment of the performance of likelihood ratio computation methods

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 58, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1503-1518

  Ramos, Daniel ^a   Gonzalez Rodriguez, Joaquin ^a   Zadora, Grzegorz ^b   Aitken, Colin ^c  

^a Universidad Autonoma de Madrid   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC RESEARCH   (Poland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Empirical cross entropy; Evidence evaluation; Forensic science; Glass evidence; Information theory; Likelihood ratio; Performance assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886749339     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12233     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification. Science 2005;309(5736):892-5.
2. National Research Council, The National Academies. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.
3. Government of the United Kingdom. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 190. The admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales - a new approach to the determination of evidentiary reliability; Retrieved from: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp190.pdf (accessed January 17, 2011).
4. U.S. Supreme Court. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals. 509 U.S. 579, 1993.
5. Parker JB, Holford A. Optimum test statistics with particular reference to a forensic science problem. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 1968;17:237-51.
6. Darboux JG, Appell PE, Poincaré JH. Examen critique des diverses systémes ou études graphologiques auxquels a donné lieu le bordereau. Enquête de la chambre criminelle de la Cour De Cassation, 5 mars-19 novembre 1904, Tome 3. Paris, France: Ligue française de droits de l'homme et du citoyen, 1908;499-600.
7. Lindley DV. A problem in forensic science. Biometrika 1977;64(2):207-13.
8. Evett IW. Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework. Sci Justice 1998;38(3):198-202.
9. Champod C, Vuille J. Scientific evidence in Europe - admissibility, appraisal and equality of arms; comparative study on scientific evidence drawn up for the Bureau of the Council of Europe's European Committee on Crime Problems. Tech. Rep. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe - European Committee on Crime Problems, 2010.
10. Cover TM, Thomas JA. Elements of Information Theory, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Interscience, 2006.
11. 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(4):231-9.
12. Ramos D, Gonzalez-Rodriguez J. Cross-entropy analysis of the information in forensic speaker recognition. Proceedings of IEEE Odyssey; 2008 Jan 21-25; Stellenbosch, South Africa. Baixas, France: International Speech Communication Association (ISCA), 2008; Retrieved from: http://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/odyssey_2008/index.html. (accessed June 28, 2013).
13. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci Justice 1998;38:151-6.
14. Aitken C, Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, 2nd edn. Chichester, U.K.: J. Wiley & Sons, 2004.
15. Taroni F, Bozza F, Biedermann A, Garbolino P, Aitken C. Data Analysis in Forensic Science: a Bayesian Decision Perspective. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley, 2010.
16. Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011 May 10;108(19):7733-8.
17. Evett IW, Buckleton J. Statistical analysis of STR data. In: Carracedo A, Brinkmann B, Bär W, editors. Advances in Forensic Haemogenetics. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1996;79-86.
18. Tippett CF, Emerson VJ, Fereday MJ, Lawton F, Richardson A, Jones LT, et al. The evidential value of the comparison of paint flakes from sources other than vehicles. J Forensic Sci Soc 1968;2:61-5.
19. Zadora G, Ramos D. Evaluation of glass samples for forensic purposes - an application of likelihood ratio model and information-theoretical approach. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 2010;102:62-73.
20. Royall R. On the probability of observing statistical misleading evidence. J Am Stat Assoc 2000;95(451):760-8.
21. Martin A, Doddington G, Kamm T, Ordowski M, Przybocki M. The DET curve in assessment of decision task performance. In: Kokkinakis G, Fakotakis N, Dermatas E, editors. Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH 1997); 1997 Sept 22-25; Rhodes, Greece, 1997;1895-8.
22. Ramos D. Forensic evaluation of the evidence using automatic speaker recognition systems [Ph.D. thesis]. Madrid, Spain: Depto. de Ingenieria Informatica, Escuela Politecnica Superior, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, 2007; http://atvs.ii.uam.es. (accessed June 28, 2013).
23. Brümmer N, duPreez J. Application independent evaluation of speaker detection. Comput Speech Lang 2006;20(2-3):230-75.
24. Gneiting T, Raftery A. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction and estimation. J Am Stat Assoc 2007;102:359-78.
25. deGroot MH, Fienberg SE. The comparison and evaluation of forecasters. Statistician 1983;32:12-22.
26. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 1948;27:379-423, 623-56
27. Fawcett T, Niculescu-Mizil A. PAV and the ROC convex hull. Mach Learn 2007;68(1):97-106.
28. Brummer N. Measuring, refining and calibrating speaker and language information extracted from speech [Ph.D. thesis]. Stellenbosch, South Africa: School of Electrical Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, 2010; http://sites.google.com/site/nikobrummer/. (accessed June 28, 2013).
29. Curran JM, Hicks TN, Buckleton JS. Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.
30. Aitken CGG, Zadora G, Lucy D. A two-level model for evidence evaluation. J Forensic Sci 2007;52(2):412-9.
31. Zadora G, Neocleous T. Likelihood ratio model for classification of forensic evidences. Anal Chim Acta 2009;642(1-2):266-78.
32. Zadora G. Classification of glass fragments based on elemental composition and refractive index. J Forensic Sci 2009;54:49-59.
33. Aitken CGG, Lucy D. Evaluation of trace evidence in the form of multivariate data. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 2004;53:109-22. with corrigendum 665-666.
34. Gonzalez-Rodriguez J, Rose P, Ramos D, Toledano DT, Ortega-Garcia J. Emulating DNA: rigorous quantification of evidential weight in transparent and testable forensic speaker recognition. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 2007;15(7):2104-15.
35. National Institute of Standards and Technologies. Evaluation of latent fingerprint technologies. Tech. Report; http://fingerprint.nist.gov/latent/elft07. (accessed June 28, 2013).