-
The Influence of Validation Data on Logical and Scientific Interpretations of Forensic Expert Opinions
Authors:
Steven P. Lund,
Hari Iyer
Abstract:
Forensic experts use specialized training and knowledge to enable other members of the judicial system to make better informed and more just decisions. Factfinders, in particular, are tasked with judging how much weight to give to experts' reports and opinions. Many references describe assessing evidential weight from the perspective of a forensic expert. Some recognize that stakeholders are each…
▽ More
Forensic experts use specialized training and knowledge to enable other members of the judicial system to make better informed and more just decisions. Factfinders, in particular, are tasked with judging how much weight to give to experts' reports and opinions. Many references describe assessing evidential weight from the perspective of a forensic expert. Some recognize that stakeholders are each responsible for evaluating their own weight of evidence. Morris (1971, 1974, 1977) provided a general framework for recipients to update their own uncertainties after learning an expert's opinion. Although this framework is normative under Bayesian axioms and several forensic scholars advocate the use of Bayesian reasoning, few resources describe its application in forensic science. This paper addresses this gap by examining how recipients can combine principles of science and Bayesian reasoning to evaluate their own likelihood ratios for expert opinions. This exercise helps clarify how an expert's role depends on whether one envisions recipients to be logical and scientific or deferential. Illustrative examples with an expert's opinion expressed as a categorical conclusion, likelihood ratio, or range of likelihood ratios, or with likelihood ratios from multiple experts, each reveal the importance and influence of validation data for logical recipients' interpretations.
△ Less
Submitted 5 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Bayesian Reasoning and Evidence Communication
Authors:
Steven Lund,
Hari Iyer
Abstract:
Many resources for forensic scholars and practitioners, such as journal articles, guidance documents, and textbooks, address how to make a value of evidence assessment in the form of a likelihood ratio (LR) when deciding between two competing propositions. These texts often describe experts presenting their LR values to other parties in the judicial system, such as lawyers, judges, and potentially…
▽ More
Many resources for forensic scholars and practitioners, such as journal articles, guidance documents, and textbooks, address how to make a value of evidence assessment in the form of a likelihood ratio (LR) when deciding between two competing propositions. These texts often describe experts presenting their LR values to other parties in the judicial system, such as lawyers, judges, and potentially jurors, but few texts explicitly address how a recipient is expected to utilize the provided LR value. Those that do often imply, or directly suggest, a hybrid modification of Bayes' rule in which a decision maker multiplies their prior odds with another person's assessment of LR to obtain their posterior odds. In this paper, we illustrate how someone adhering to Bayesian reasoning would update their personal uncertainty in response to someone else presenting a personal LR value (or any other form of an opinion) and emphasize that the hybrid approach is a departure from Bayesian reasoning. We further consider implications of recipients adhering to Bayesian reasoning on the role and ideal content of expert's reports and testimony and address published responses to our 2017 paper (Lund and Iyer, 2017), where we previously argued that the hybrid equation is not supported by Bayesian reasoning.
△ Less
Submitted 10 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Closer Look
Authors:
Steven P. Lund,
Hari K. Iyer
Abstract:
The forensic science community has increasingly sought quantitative methods for conveying the weight of evidence. Experts from many forensic laboratories summarize their findings in terms of a likelihood ratio. Several proponents of this approach have argued that Bayesian reasoning proves it to be normative. We find this likelihood ratio paradigm to be unsupported by arguments of Bayesian decision…
▽ More
The forensic science community has increasingly sought quantitative methods for conveying the weight of evidence. Experts from many forensic laboratories summarize their findings in terms of a likelihood ratio. Several proponents of this approach have argued that Bayesian reasoning proves it to be normative. We find this likelihood ratio paradigm to be unsupported by arguments of Bayesian decision theory, which applies only to personal decision making and not to the transfer of information from an expert to a separate decision maker. We further argue that decision theory does not exempt the presentation of a likelihood ratio from uncertainty characterization, which is required to assess the fitness for purpose of any transferred quantity. We propose the concept of a lattice of assumptions leading to an uncertainty pyramid as a framework for assessing the uncertainty in an evaluation of a likelihood ratio. We demonstrate the use of these concepts with illustrative examples regarding the refractive index of glass and automated comparison scores for fingerprints.
△ Less
Submitted 26 April, 2017;
originally announced April 2017.
-
Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Metrological Perspective
Authors:
Steven P. Lund,
Hari Iyer
Abstract:
In this article we provide a rebuttal against the possible perception that a single number, such as the Likelihood Ratio, can provide an objective, authoritative or definitive weight of evidence. We also illustrate the extent to which conclusions can vary depending on the assumptions used in the analysis, even under alternative assumptions that are judged to be consistent with available empirical…
▽ More
In this article we provide a rebuttal against the possible perception that a single number, such as the Likelihood Ratio, can provide an objective, authoritative or definitive weight of evidence. We also illustrate the extent to which conclusions can vary depending on the assumptions used in the analysis, even under alternative assumptions that are judged to be consistent with available empirical information. To facilitate these goals, we introduce the notion of a Lattice of Assumptions and an Uncertainty Pyramid illustrated in the context of a previously published example involving glass evidence. We take the position that rather than focusing on a single number summary as the weight of evidence it is the duty of the forensic expert to assist the trier of fact in forming their own interpretations from a clear understanding of the objective and demonstrably available information. We hope the presented arguments will inspire those in the forensic science community to pursue establishing their practice on a solid foundation of measurement science.
△ Less
Submitted 19 September, 2016; v1 submitted 26 August, 2016;
originally announced August 2016.
