Skip to content

Ensemble SLRs for Forensic Evidence Comparison

Primary Author: Danica Ommen
Type: Webinar

This CSAFE webinar was held on August 25, 2022.

Presenter:
Danica Ommen
Assistant Professor – Department of Statistics, Iowa State University

Presentation Description:

To strengthen the statistical foundations of forensic evidence interpretation, likelihood ratios and Bayes factors are advocated to quantify the value of evidence. Both methods rely on formulating a statistical model, which can be challenging for complex evidence. Machine learning score-based likelihood ratios have been proposed as an alternative in those cases. Under this framework, a (dis)similarity score and its distribution under alternative propositions are estimated using pairwise comparisons, but pairwise comparisons of all the evidential objects result in dependent scores. While machine learning methods may not require distributional assumptions, most assume independence. We introduce a sampling and ensembling approach to remedy this lack of independence. We generate sets where assumptions are met to develop multiple score-based  likelihood ratios later aggregated into a final score to quantify the value of evidence.

Webinar Recording:

Read more about the study in this post

Related Resources

Towards a likelihood ratio approach for bloodstain pattern analysis

Towards a likelihood ratio approach for bloodstain pattern analysis

In this work, we explore the application of likelihood ratio as a forensic evidence assessment tool to evaluate the causal mechanism of a bloodstain pattern. It is assumed that there…
An Open-Source Implementation of the CMPS Algorithm for Assessing Similarity of Bullets

An Open-Source Implementation of the CMPS Algorithm for Assessing Similarity of Bullets

In this paper, we introduce the R package cmpsR, an open-source implementation of the Congruent Matching Profile Segments (CMPS) method developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)…
Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – Subversion of the OSAC standards-development process

This Letter to the Editor is a reply to Mohammed et al. (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100145, which in turn is a response to Morrison et al. (2020) “Vacuous standards – subversion of…