Cross entropy and log likelihood ratio cost as performance measures for multi-conclusion categorical outcomes scales
Eric M. Warren PhD
SEP Forensic Consultants, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJohn C. Handley PhD
Simon Business School, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
H. David Sheets PhD
Computer and Data Sciences, Merrimack College, North Andover, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence
H. David Sheets, Computer and Data Sciences, Merrimack College, 315 Turnpike St, North, Andover, MA 01845, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorEric M. Warren PhD
SEP Forensic Consultants, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJohn C. Handley PhD
Simon Business School, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
H. David Sheets PhD
Computer and Data Sciences, Merrimack College, North Andover, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence
H. David Sheets, Computer and Data Sciences, Merrimack College, 315 Turnpike St, North, Andover, MA 01845, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
The inconclusive category in forensics reporting is the appropriate response in many cases, but it poses challenges in estimating an “error rate”. We discuss the use of a class of information-theoretic measures related to cross entropy as an alternative set of metrics that allows for performance evaluation of results presented using multi-category reporting scales. This paper shows how this class of performance metrics, and in particular the log likelihood ratio cost, which is already in use with likelihood ratio forensic reporting methods and in machine learning communities, can be readily adapted for use with the widely used multiple category conclusions scales. Bayesian credible intervals on these metrics can be estimated using numerical methods. The application of these metrics to published test results is shown. It is demonstrated, using these test results, that reducing the number of categories used in a proficiency test from five or six to three increases the cross entropy, indicating that the higher number of categories was justified, as it they increased the level of agreement with ground truth.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Supporting Information
Filename | Description |
---|---|
jfo15686-sup-0001-Figure_S1.pngPNG image, 399.8 KB |
Figure S1. |
jfo15686-sup-0002-Supplemental Information.docxWord 2007 document , 81.2 KB |
Table S1. Table S2. Table S3. Table S4. Table S5. Table S6. Table S7. Table S8. Table S9. Table S10. Table S11. Table S12. Table S13. Table S14. Table S15. Table S16. Table S17. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Morrison GS. A method to convert traditional fingerprint ACE / ACE-V outputs (“identification”, “inconclusive”, “exclusion”) to Bayes factors. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.00451
10.48550/arXiv.2409.00451 Google Scholar
- 2William D. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469. 1993.
- 3James A. United States. 293 U.S. F. 1013, D.C. Cir. 1923.
- 428 App Fed USC, Evid R. Rule 702. Testimony by expert witnesses. LII/Legal Information Institute. 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702; Accessed 21 Nov 2024.
- 5Bunch SG, Wevers G. Application of likelihood ratios for firearm and toolmark analysis. Sci Justice. 2013; 53(2): 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.12.005
- 6Dror IE, Langenburg G. “Cannot decide”: the fine line between appropriate inconclusive determinations versus unjustifiably deciding not to decide. J Forensic Sci. 2019; 64(1): 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13854
- 7Carter KE, Vogelsang MD, Vanderkolk J, Busey T. The utility of expanded conclusion scales during latent print examinations. J Forensic Sci. 2020; 65(4): 1141–1154. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14298
- 8Dror IE, Scurich N. Misuse of scientific measurements in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2020; 2: 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.006
- 9Weller TJ, Morris MD. Commentary on: I. Dror, N Scurich Misuse of scientific measurements in forensic science forensic science international synergy. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2020; 2: 701–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.10.004
- 10Hofmann H, Carriquiry A, Vanderplas S. Treatment of inconclusives in the AFTE range of conclusions. Law Probab Risk. 2020; 19(3–4): 317–364. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgab002
- 11Scurich N, Dror IE. Continued confusion about inconclusives and error rates: reply to Weller and Morris. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2020; 2: 703–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.10.005
- 12Arkes HR, Koehler JJ. Inconclusives and error rates in forensic science: a signal detection theory approach. Law Probab Risk. 2021; 20(3): 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgac005
10.1093/lpr/mgac005 Google Scholar
- 13Biedermann A, Kotsoglou KN. Forensic science and the principle of excluded middle: “inconclusive” decisions and the structure of error rate studies. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2021; 3:100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100147
- 14Arkes HR, Koehler JJ. Inconclusives are not errors: a rejoinder to Dror. Law Probab Risk. 2022; 21(1): 89–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgac009
- 15Arkes HR, Koehler JJ. Inconclusive conclusions in forensic science: rejoinders to Scurich, Morrison. Sinha and Gutierrez Law Probab Risk. 2022; 21(3–4): 175–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad002
10.1093/lpr/mgad002 Google Scholar
- 16Dorfman AH, Valliant R. Inconclusives, errors, and error rates in forensic firearms analysis: three statistical perspectives. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2022; 5:100273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100273
- 17Dror IE. The use and abuse of the elusive construct of inconclusive decisions. Law Probab Risk. 2022; 21(1): 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgac008
- 18Morrison GS. A plague on both your houses: the debate about how to deal with ‘inconclusive’ conclusions when calculating error rates. Law Probab Risk. 2022; 21(2): 127–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgac015
- 19Warren EM, Sheets HD. The inconclusive category, entropy, and forensic firearm identification. Forensic Sci Int. 2023; 349:111741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111741
- 20Neuman M, Hundl C, Grimaldi A, Eudaley D, Stein D, Stout P. Blind testing in firearms: preliminary results from a blind quality control program. J Forensic Sci. 2022; 67(3): 964–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15031
- 21 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Report on forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President; 2016.
- 22Baldwin DP, Bajic SJ, Morris MD, Zamzow DS. A study of examiner accuracy in cartridge case comparisons. Part 1: examiner error rates. Forensic Sci Int. 2023; 349:111733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111733
- 23 Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Statistical guidance on reporting results from studies evaluating diagnostic tests—guidance for industry and FDA staff. US Food and Drug Administration. 2007. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/statistical-guidance-reporting-results-studies-evaluating-diagnostic-tests-guidance-industry-and-fda; Accessed 12 Nov 2023.
- 24Scurich N, John RS. Three-way ROCs for forensic decision making. Stat Public Policy. 2023; 10(1):2239306. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2023.2239306
- 25Brownlee J. Tour of evaluation metrics for imbalanced classification. Machine Learning Mastery. 2021. https://machinelearningmastery.com/tour-of-evaluation-metrics-for-imbalanced-classification/; Accessed 6 Sept 2023.
- 26Brownlee J. Imbalanced classification with python: better metrics, balance skewed classes, cost-sensitive learning. Machine Learning Mastery. 2020. https://machinelearningmastery.com/tour-of-evaluation-metrics-for-imbalanced-classification/; Accessed 6 Sept 2023.
- 27Fernández A, García S, Galar M, Prati RC, Krawczyk B, Herrera F. Learning from imbalanced data sets. 2018th ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2018.
10.1007/978-3-319-98074-4 Google Scholar
- 28Ferri C, Hernández-Orallo J, Modroiu R. An experimental comparison of performance measures for classification. Pattern Recogn Lett. 2009; 30(1): 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2008.08.010
- 29 H He, Y Ma, editors. Imbalanced learning: foundations, algorithms, and applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
10.1002/9781118646106 Google Scholar
- 30van Leeuwen DA, Brümmer N. An introduction to application-independent evaluation of speaker recognition systems. In: C Müller, editor. Speaker classification I: fundamentals, features, and methods. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2007. p. 330–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74200-5_19
10.1007/978-3-540-74200-5_19 Google Scholar
- 31Brümmer N, du Preez J. Application-independent evaluation of speaker detection. Comput Speech Lang. 2006; 20(2): 230–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2005.08.001
- 32González-Rodríguez 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): 2104–2115. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2007.902747
- 33Ramos CD. Forensic evaluation of the evidence using automatic speaker recognition systems (PhD thesis). Madrid, Spain: Polytechnic University of Madrid; 2007.
- 34van Lierop S, Ramos D, Sjerps M, Ypma R. An overview of log likelihood ratio cost in forensic science—where is it used and what values can we expect? Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2024; 8:100466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100466
- 35Basu N, Bolton-King RS, Morrison GS. Forensic comparison of fired cartridge cases: feature-extraction methods for feature-based calculation of likelihood ratios. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2022; 5:100272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100272
- 36Ramos D, Franco-Pedroso J, Lozano-Diez A, Gonzalez-Rodriguez J. Deconstructing cross-entropy for probabilistic binary classifiers. Entropy. 2018; 20(3):208. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20030208
- 37Ramos D, González-Rodríguez J, Zadora G, Aitken C. Information-theoretical assessment of the performance of likelihood ratio computation methods. J Forensic Sci. 2013; 58(6): 1503–1518. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12233
- 38Ramos D, Meuwly D, Haraksim R, Berger CEH. Validation of forensic automatic likelihood ratio methods. In: D Banks, K Kafadar, DH Kaye, M Tackett, editors. Handbook of forensic statistics. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2020.
10.1201/9780367527709-7 Google Scholar
- 39Ramos D, González-Rodríguez J. Reliable support: measuring calibration of likelihood ratios. Forensic Sci Int. 2013; 230(1): 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.014
- 40Riva F, Champod C. Automatic comparison and evaluation of impressions left by a firearm on fired cartridge cases. J Forensic Sci. 2014; 59(3): 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12382
- 41Mattijssen EJAT, Witteman CLM, Berger CEH, Zheng XA, Soons JA, Stoel RD. Firearm examination: examiner judgments and computer-based comparisons. J Forensic Sci. 2021; 66(1): 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14557
- 42Champod C, Baldwin D, Taroni F, Buckleton JS. Firearm and tool marks identification: the Bayesian approach. AFTE J. 2003; 35(3): 307–316.
- 43Walsh K, Wevers G. Toolmark identification: can we determine a criteria? INTERface. Forensic Sci Soc News Lett. 2003; 29: 4–5.
- 44Buckleton J, Nichols RG, Triggs C. An exploratory Bayesian model for firearm and tool mark interpretation. AFTE J. 2005; 37(4): 352–361.
- 45Ramos D, Franco-Pedroso J, González-Rodríguez J. Calibration and weight of the evidence by human listeners. The ATVS-UAM submission to NIST HUMAN-aided speaker recognition 2010. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE international conference on acoustics. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2011. p. 5908–5911. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2011.5947706
- 46Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948; 27(3): 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
- 47Shore J, Johnson R. Properties of cross-entropy minimization. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 1981; 27(4): 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1981.1056373
- 48Mannor S, Peleg D, Rubinstein R. The cross entropy method for classification. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on machine learning; 2005 Aug 7–11; Bonn, Germany. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery; 2005. p. 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1145/1102351.1102422
10.1145/1102351.1102422 Google Scholar
- 49Simel DL, Feussner JR, DeLong ER, Matchar DB. Intermediate, indeterminate, and uninterpretable diagnostic test results. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak. 1987; 7(2): 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X8700700208
- 50Feinstein AR. The inadequacy of binary models for the clinical reality of three-zone diagnostic decisions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43(1): 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90064-v
- 51Santosa B. Multiclass classification with cross entropy-support vector machines. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015; 72: 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.149
10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.149 Google Scholar
- 52Abadi M, Agarwal A, Barham P, Brevdo E, Chen Z, Citro C, et al. TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1603.04467
10.48550/arXiv.1603.04467 Google Scholar
- 53Diaz M, Ferrer MA, Impedovo D, Malik MI, Pirlo G, Plamondon R. A perspective analysis of handwritten signature technology. ACM Comput Surv. 2019; 51(6): 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274658
- 54Hsu SS. FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades. The. Wash Post. 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-allcriminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-; Accessed 28 Jan 2024.
- 55 US Department of Justice. Deputy attorney general Sally Q. Yates delivers remarks during the 68th annual scientific meeting hosted by the American Academy of forensic science. Washington DC: US Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs; 2016 https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-sally-q-yates-delivers-remarks-during-68th-annual-scientific. Accessed 28 Jan 2024
- 56 US Department of Justice. Forensic science. Department of Justice Archives. 2016 https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/forensic-science. Accessed 28 Jan 2024
- 57 US Department of Justice. Uniform language for testimony and reports Office of Legal Policy | Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports. 2018 https://www.justice.gov/olp/uniform-language-testimony-and-reports. Accessed 5 Jan 2023
- 58 US Department of Justice. Uniform language for testimony and reports for the forensic firearms/toolmarks discipline pattern examination. 2023 https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-05/firearms_pattern_examination_ultr_5.18.23.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2024
- 59Lee S-Y, Poon W-Y, Bentler PM. Structural equation models with continuous and polytomous variables. Psychometrika. 1992; 57(1): 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294660
- 60Bonett DG, Price RM. Inferential methods for the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005; 30(2): 213–225. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030002213
- 61Drasgow F. Polychoric and polyserial correlations. In: S Kotz, N Balakrishnan, CB Read, B Vidakovic, NL Johnson, editors. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 1986. p. 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471667196.ess2014
- 62Kiwanuka F, Kopra J, Sak-Dankosky N, Nanyonga RC, Kvist T. Polychoric correlation with ordinal data in nursing research. Nurs Res. 2022; 71(6): 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000614
- 63Lund SP, Iyer H. Likelihood ratio as weight of forensic evidence: a closer look. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol. 2017; 122: 27–32. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.122.027
- 64Gittelson S, Berger CEH, Jackson G, Evett IW, Champod C, Robertson B, et al. A response to “likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: a closer look” by Lund and Iyer. Forensic Sci Int. 2018; 288: e15–e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.025
- 65Rosenblum M, Chin ET, Ogburn EL, Nishimura A, Westreich D, Datta A, et al. Misuse of statistical method results in highly biased interpretation of forensic evidence in Guyll et al. (2023). Law Probab Risk. 2024; 23(1):mgad010. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad010
- 66Nordgaard A, Rasmusson B. The likelihood ratio as value of evidence—more than a question of numbers. Law Probab Risk. 2012; 11(4): 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgs019
- 67Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16018
- 68Gabry J, Češnovar R, Johnson A, Bronder S. cmdstanr: R interface to “CmdStan”. 2024 Accessed 21 Nov 2024.
- 69Albright TD. How to make better forensic decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2022; 119(38):e2206567119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206567119
- 70Thompson WC, Grady RH, Lai E, Stern HS. Perceived strength of forensic scientists' reporting statements about source conclusions. Law Probab Risk. 2018; 17(2): 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgy012
- 71Riva F, Mattijssen EJAT, Hermsen R, Pieper P, Kerkhoff W, Champod C. Comparison and interpretation of impressed marks left by a firearm on cartridge cases—towards an operational implementation of a likelihood ratio based technique. Forensic Sci Int. 2020; 313:110363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110363
- 72 Association of Firearm and Tool mark Examiners. AFTE range of conclusions. https://afte.org/about-us/what-is-afte/afte-range-of-conclusions 2023.
- 73Wixted JT. The forgotten history of signal detection theory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020; 46(2): 201–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000732
- 74van den Hout A, Alberink I. Posterior distributions for likelihood ratios in forensic science. Sci Justice. 2016; 56(5): 397–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.06.011
- 75Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011; 108(19): 7733–7738. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018707108
- 76Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Roberts MA, Buscaglia J. Factors associated with latent fingerprint exclusion determinations. Forensic Sci Int. 2017; 275: 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.02.011
- 77Baldwin DP, Bajic SJ, Morris MD, Zamzow D. A study of false-positive and false-negative error rates in cartridge case comparisons. Ames, IA: Iowa State University; 2014 Accessed 27 Nov 2024.
10.21236/ADA611807 Google Scholar
- 78Butler JM, Kline MC, Coble MD. NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): variation observed and lessons learned. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018; 37: 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.07.024
- 79Buckleton JS, Bright J-A, Cheng K, Budowle B, Coble MD. NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX13): a modern analysis. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018; 37: 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.08.014
- 80Monson KL, Smith ED, Peters EM. Accuracy of comparison decisions by forensic firearms examiners. J Forensic Sci. 2023; 68(1): 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15152
- 81Chumbley LS, Morris MD, Bajic SJ, Zamzow D, Smith E, Monson K, et al. Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of firearm comparisons part 1: Accuracy. arXiv:2108.04030v1. 30 July 2021 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.04030
10.48550/arXiv.2108.04030 Google Scholar
- 82Jegerlehner S, Suter-Riniker F, Jent P, Bittel P, Nagler M. Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in real-life clinical settings. Int J Infect Dis. 2021; 109: 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.010
- 83Hicklin RA, Winer KR, Kish PE, Parks CL, Chapman W, Dunagan K, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of conclusions by forensic bloodstain pattern analysts. Forensic Sci Int. 2021; 325:110856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110856
- 84Austin Hicklin R, McVicker BC, Parks C, LeMay J, Richetelli N, Smith M, et al. Accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of forensic footwear examiner decisions. Forensic Sci Int. 2022; 339:111418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111418
- 85Hicklin RA, Eisenhart L, Richetelli N, Miller MD, Belcastro P, Burkes TM, et al. Accuracy and reliability of forensic handwriting comparisons. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2022; 119(32):e2119944119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119944119
- 86Elli S, Blasi F, Brignolo B, Ceriotti F, Gori A, Piatti A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen test for COVID-19 in an emergency department. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2022; 102(4):115635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115635
- 87Khalid MF, Selvam K, Jeffry AJN, Salmi MF, Najib MA, Norhayati MN, et al. Performance of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagn Basel Switz. 2022; 12(1):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010110
- 88Guyll M, Madon S, Yang Y, Burd KA, Wells G. Validity of forensic cartridge-case comparisons. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2023; 120(20):e2210428120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210428120
- 89LaPorte D. An empirical and validation study of breechface marks on .380 ACP caliber cartridge cases fired from ten consecutively finished hi-point model C9 pistols. AFTE J. 2011; 43(4): 303–309.
- 90Clow CM, Becker J. Firing-induced obliteration of breechface marks on a hi-point pistol. AFTE J. 2015; 47(4): 228–229.
- 91Biedermann A, Kotsoglou KN. Commentary on “three-way ROCs for forensic decision making” by Nicholas Scurich and Richard S. John (in: statistics and public policy). Stat. Public Policy. 2024; 11(1): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2023.2288166
10.1080/2330443X.2023.2288166 Google Scholar
- 92Morrison GS, Enzinger E, Hughes V, Jessen M, Meuwly D, Neumann C, et al. Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison. Sci Justice. 2021; 61(3): 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.02.002
- 93Biedermann A. The strange persistence of (source) “identification” claims in forensic literature through descriptivism, diagnosticism and machinism. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2022; 4:100222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100222
- 94Biedermann A, Champod C. Why the post-identification era is long overdue: commentary on the current controversy over forensic feature comparison as applied to forensic firearms examination. Int J Evid Proof. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241278069