Likelihood ratio asweightofforensic evidence: Acloser look

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology

Volumn 122, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Lund, Steven P ^a   Iyer, Hari ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assumptions lattice; Bayes' rule; Bayes'factor; Bayesian decision theory; Subjective probability; Uncertainty; Uncertainty pyramid

Indexed keywords

CONVEYING; DECISION THEORY; LATTICE THEORY; REFRACTIVE INDEX;

ASSUMPTION LATTICE; BAYES FACTOR; BAYES' RULE; BAYESIAN DECISION THEORY; LIKELIHOOD RATIOS; SCIENCE COMMUNITY; SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITY; UNCERTAINTY; UNCERTAINTY PYRAMID;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 85033205974     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21657254     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.6028/jres.122.027     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. National Research Council (2009) StrengtheningForensic Scienceinthe United States:APathForward. Committee on Identifying the Needsof theForensic Sciences Community, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Document No. 228091, National Academy of Sciences.https://doi.org/10.17226/12589.
2. President's Councilof Advisorson ScienceandTechnology (2016) Reporttothe President:Forensic Sciencein Criminal Courts: Ensuring ScientifcValidityof Feature-Comparison Methods. President's Councilof Advisors on Science andTechnology,Washington, D.C.
3. Aitken CGG, RobertsP, JacksonG(2010) Practitioner GuideNo1: Fundamentalsof Probability and Statistical Evidencein Criminal Proceedings-Guidance for Judges,Lawyers,Forensic Scientists and ExpertWitnesses. Communicating and Interpreting Statistical Evidence in the Administration of Criminal Justice. Prepared under the auspicesof theRoyal Statistical Society'sWorking Group on Statistics and theLaw, London, United Kingdom.
4. European NetworkofForensic Science Institutes (2015) Strengthening theEvaluationofForensic Results across Europe (STEOFRAE), ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science, approved version 3.0. European NetworkofForensic Science Institutes,Wiesbaden, Germany.
5. Aitken CGG,TaroniF(2004) Statistics and the Evaluationof Evidence forForensic Scientists (JohnWileyand Sons,NewYork). https://doi.org/10.1002/0470011238.
6. MeesterR,SjerpsM(2004)Whytheeffectofpriorodds should accompanythelikelihoodratiowhen reporting DNAevidence. Law, Probability, and Risk 3:61-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/3.1.51.
7. deKeijserJ, ElffersH(2012) Understandingof forensicexpert reportsby judges, defenselawyers and forensic professionals. Psychology, Crime&Law 18(2):191-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683161003736744.
8. MartireKA,KempRI,SayleM,NewellBR(2014)Onthe interpretationoflikelihood ratiosin forensic science evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Science International240:61-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.04.005.
9. TaroniF,BiedermannA,BozzaS, GarbolinoP,AitkenCGG(2014) Bayesian Networks for Probabilistic Inference and Decision AnalysisinForensic Science (Wiley,NewYork), 2nd ed. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118914762.
10. Zadora G, Martyna A, Ramos D, Aitken CGG (2014) Statistical AnalysisinForensic Science EvidentialValueof Multivariate Physicochemical Data (Wiley,NewYork). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118763155.
11. MoreyaRD, RomeijnaJ-W, RoudercJN (2016)The philosophyof Bayes'factorsandthe quantifcationof statistical evidence. Journal of Mathematical Psychology72:6-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.11.001.
12. Savage LJ (1972) TheFoundationsof Statistics (Dover, Mineola, NY) 2nd revised ed. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800010316.
13. LindleyDV(2014) Understanding Uncertainty (Wiley,NewYork), revised ed.,WileySeriesin Probability and Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470055480.
14. GilboaI(2009) Theoryof Decision under Uncertainty (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom), Econometric Society Monographs 45. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840203.
15. UleryBT, HicklinRA,BuscagliaJ, RobertsMA (2011) Accuracyand reliabilityof forensic latent fngerprint decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108(19):7733-7738. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018707108.
16. ThompsonWC, KaasaSO,PetersonT(2013)Do jurorsgive appropriate weightto forensic identifcation evidence? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies10(2):359-397. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12013.
17. ThompsonWC,NewmanEJ(2015)Lay understandingof forensic statistics:Evaluationof random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents. Law and Human Behavior 39(4):332-349. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000134.
18. LindleyDV(1977)Aproblemin forensic science. Biometrika 64(2):207-213. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/64.2.207.
19. Good IJ (1950) Probability and theWeighingof Evidence (Charles Griffn and CompanyLimited, London, United Kingdom). https://doi.org/10.1086/398369.
20. FienbergSE (1989) The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts (Springer-Verlag, NewYork). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3604-7.
21. Dawid AP (2002) Bayes's theorem and weighing evidence by juries. Proceedings of the British Academy 113:71-90. https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197263419.001.0001.
22. KayeDH, FreedmanDA(2011)Referenceguideon statistics. Reference Manual on Scientifc Evidence (National Academy Press,Washington, D.C.), 3rd ed.,pp 211-302. https://doi.org/10.17226/13163.
23. KadaneJ(2011) Principles of Uncertainty (Chapman and Hall/CRCTextsin Statistical Science, Boca Raton, FL). https://doi.org/10.1201/b11322.
24. Science&Justice (2016) Special Issue on Measuring and Reporting the PrecisionofForensic Likelihood Ratios, GS Morrison, Guest Editor. Science&Justice 56(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.05.002.
25. TaroniF, Aitken CGG, GarbolinoP, BiedermannA(2006) Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science(JohnWiley&Sons, Ltd.,NewYork). https://doi.org/10.1002/0470091754.
26. NeumannC,EvettIW,SkerrettJ(2012) Quantifying the weightofevidence froma forensic fngerprint comparison: A new paradigm. Journalof the Royal Statistical SocietyA175(2):371-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.01027.x.
27. HoetingJA, MadiganD,RafteryAE,VolinskyCT (1999) Bayesian modelaveraging:a tutorial. Statistical Science 14(4):382-417. https://doi.org/10.7916/D84M92N7.
28. WalleyP(1991) Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities (Springer-Science+Business Media, B.Y., Berlin, Germany). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3472-7.
29. AugustinT, DoriaS,MarinacciM(2016) Special Issue: Ninth International Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theory and Applications (ISIPTA'15). InternationalJournalof Approximate Reasoning 83:1-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.01.004.
30. LindleyDV,TverskyA, BrownRV(1979)On the reconciliationof probability assessments. Journal of the Royal Statistical SocietyA 142(2):146-180. https://doi.org/10.2307/2345078.
31. KadaneJB,WinklerRL (1988) Separating probability elicitation from utilities. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83(402):357-363. https://doi.org/10.2307/2288850.
32. TaroniF,BozzaS,BiedermannA,AitkenCGG(2016) Dismissalofthe illusionof uncertaintyinthe assessment of a likelihood ratio. Law, Probability and Risk 15:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgv008.
33. MorgenthalerS,TukeyJW (1991) ConfguralPolysampling:ARoutetoPracticalRobustness (Wiley-Interscience, NewYork).
34. Williamson RC (1989) Probabilistic Arithmetic, Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2015.241.
35. WilliamsonR,DownsT(1990) Probabilistic arithmetic.I. Numerical methodsfor calculating convolutionsand dependencybounds. InternationalJournalof Approximate Reasoning 4(2):89-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-613X(90)90022-T.
36. HoffmanFO, HammondsJS(1994) Propagationof uncertaintyin risk assessments: The needto distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Analysis 14(5):707-712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00281.x.
37. FersonS, KreinovichV, GinzburgL,MyersDS, SentzK(2002) Constructing ProbabilityBoxesand Dempster-Shafer Structures. Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, Report SAND2002-4015, printed January 2003. https://doi.org/10.2172/809606.
38. ZhangJ, BerleantD(2003)Envelopes around cumulative distribution functions from interval parametersof standard continuous distributions. Proceedings of North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS 2003), Chicago, IL, pp 407-412. https://doi.org/10.1109/NAFIPS.2003.1226819.
39. ZhangJ, BerleantD(2005) Arithmetic on randomvariables: Squeezing the envelopes with new joint distribution constraints. 4th International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications, Pittsburgh,PA.
40. FersonS, SiegristJ(2011)Verifed computation with probabilities. Uncertainty Quantifcation in Scientifc Computing,10th IFIPWG2.5Working Conference, Boulder,CO,eds DienstfreyAM, BoisvertRF (Springer, Berlin), pp. 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32677-6 7.
41. LambertJA,EvettIW (1984)The refractive index distributionof control glass samplesexaminedby the forensic science laboratories in the United Kingdom. Forensic Science International, 26:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(84)90207-X.
42. Evett IW (1977) The interpretation of refractive index measurements. Forensic Science9:209-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9432(77)90093-0.
43. Owen AB (1995) Nonparametric likelihood confdence bands for a distribution function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90(430):516-521. https://doi.org/10.2307/2291062.
44. FreyJ(2008) Optimal distribution-free confdence bands fora distribution function. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 138:3086-3098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2007.12.001.
45. LiuY,TewfkA(2013) Empirical likelihood ratio test with distribution function constraints. IEEETransactions on Signal Processing 61(18):4463-4472. https://doi.org/10.1109/icassp.2013.6638886.
46. GoldmanM, KaplanDM(2015)Evenly sensitive KS-type inference on distributions: new computational, Bayesian,andtwo-sample contributions.Universityof California-SanDiegoWorkingPaper. http://econweb.ucsd.edu/mrgoldman/KG2013.pdf.
47. BennettRL,KimND,CurranJM, CoulsonSA,NewtonAWN(2003)Spatialvariationof refractiveindexina pane of foat glass. Science&Justice 43(2):71-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(03)71746-8.
48. Curran JM (2011) Introduction to Data Analysis with R forForensic Scientists (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420088274.
49. RCoreTeam (2017) R:ALanguage and Environment for Statistical Computing(RFoundation for Statistical Computing,Vienna, Austria). http://www.R-project.org/.
50. GrätzerG(2011) Lattice Theory:Foundation (Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-0018-1.
51. Jadhav SN(2011) Generating, Classifying and Indexing Large ScaleFingerprints. Master of Engineering Report, Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
52. NBIS (2015) NIST Biometric Image Software,Version 5.0.0, NIST authors:KennethKo andWayneJ. Salamon, last accessed on March 24, 2017, from https://www.nist.gov/services-resources/software/nist-biometric-image-software-nbis.
53. JCGM (2008) Evaluation of Measurement Data-Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Joint Committee for Guidesin Metrology, International BureauofWeights and Measures (BIPM),Sèvres, France, 2008; BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP and OIML, JCGM 100:2008, GUM 1995 with minor corrections. http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html.
54. PossoloA(2015) Simple Guide forEvaluating and Expressing the Uncertaintyof NIST Measurement Results. U.S. Departmentof Commerce,Washington, D.C., NISTTechnical Note 1900. https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.tn.1900.
55. PetersonWW, BirdsallTG (1953) The Theoryof Signal Detectability -.PartI. General Theory. Departmentof Electrical Engineering, Engineering Research Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic Defense GroupTechnical Report 13. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/7068.
56. Green DM, SwetsJA(1966) Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Wiley, NewYork).
57. Green DM, SwetsJA(1974) Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Huntington, NY), a reprint with corrections of the original 1966 edition.
58. BiedermannA,TaroniF,AitkenCGG (2015) Libertiesand constraintsofthe normative approachtoevaluation and decision in forensic science: A discussion towards overcoming some common misconceptions. Law, Probability and Risk 13(2):181-191. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu009.
59. Há jekA(2008) Dutch book arguments. The OxfordHandbook of Rational and Social Choice, eds AnandP, Prasanta,P, ClemensP(Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290420.001.0001.
60. NeymanJ, PearsonES (1933)On the problemof the mosteffcient testsof statisticalhypotheses. Philosophical Transactionsof the Royal Societyof LondonA231:289-337. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1933.0009.
61. LeegwaterAJ, DidierM,SjerpsM,VergeerP, AlberinkI(2017) Performancestudyofa score-basedlikelihood ratio system for forensic fngermark comparison. JournalofForensic Sciences62(3):626-640. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13339.