Literature DB >> 27702457

The LR does not exist.

Charles E H Berger1, Klaas Slooten2.   

Abstract

More than 40years ago, De Finetti warned that probability is a misleading misconception when regarded as objectively existing exterior to the mind. According to De Finetti, probabilities are necessarily subjective, and quantify our belief in the truth of events in the real world. Given evidence of a shared feature of a trace and an accused, we apply this framework to assign an evidential value to this correspondence. Dividing 1 by the objectively existing proportion of the population sharing that feature would give that evidential value - expressed as a likelihood ratio (LR) - only if that proportion were known. As in practice the proportion can only be estimated, this leads some to project their sampling uncertainty - or precision - associated with the estimated proportion onto the likelihood ratio, and to report an interval. Limited data should limit our LR however, because as we will demonstrate the LR is given by what we know about the proportion rather than by the unknown proportion itself. Encapsulating all uncertainty - including sampling uncertainty of the proportion - our LR reflects how much information we have retrieved from the feature regarding the trace's origin, based on our present knowledge. Not an interval but a number represents this amount of information, equal to the logarithm of the LR. As long as we know how to interpret the evidence with a well-defined probabilistic model, we know what our evidence is worth.
Copyright © 2016 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Evidence interpretation; Likelihood ratio; Subjective probability

Year:  2016        PMID: 27702457     DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.06.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Justice        ISSN: 1355-0306            Impact factor:   2.124


  4 in total

1.  A response to "Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: A closer look" by Lund and Iyer.

Authors:  Simone Gittelson; Charles E H Berger; Graham Jackson; Ian W Evett; Christophe Champod; Bernard Robertson; James M Curran; Duncan Taylor; Bruce S Weir; Michael D Coble; John S Buckleton
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 2.  A Review of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems: EuroForMix, DNAStatistX and STRmix™.

Authors:  Peter Gill; Corina Benschop; John Buckleton; Øyvind Bleka; Duncan Taylor
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 4.096

Review 3.  Juror comprehension of forensic expert testimony: A literature review and gap analysis.

Authors:  Heidi Eldridge
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2019-03-09       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  The Limits of Bayesian Thinking in Court.

Authors:  Ronald Meester
Journal:  Top Cogn Sci       Date:  2019-10-31
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.