Modeling the forensic two-trace problem with Bayesian networks

The forensic two-trace problem is a perplexing inference problem introduced by Evett (J Forensic Sci Soc 27:375-381, 1987). Different possible ways of wording the competing pair of propositions (i.e., one proposition advanced by the prosecution and one proposition advanced by the defence) led to different quantifications of the value of the evidence (Meester and Sjerps in Biometrics 59:727-732, 2003). Here, we re-examine this scenario with the aim of clarifying the interrelationships that exist between the different solutions, and in this way, produce a global vision of the problem. We propose to investigate the different expressions for evaluating the value of the evidence by using a graphical approach, i.e. Bayesian networks, to model the rationale behind each of the proposed solutions and the assumptions made on the unknown parameters in this proble

Sensitivity of inferences in forensic genetics to assumptions about founding genes

Many forensic genetics problems can be handled using structured systems of discrete variables, for which Bayesian networks offer an appealing practical modeling framework, and allow inferences to be computed by probability propagation methods. However, when standard assumptions are violated--for example, when allele frequencies are unknown, there is identity by descent or the population is heterogeneous--dependence is generated among founding genes, that makes exact calculation of conditional probabilities by propagation methods less straightforward. Here we illustrate different methodologies for assessing sensitivity to assumptions about founders in forensic genetics problems. These include constrained steepest descent, linear fractional programming and representing dependence by structure. We illustrate these methods on several forensic genetics examples involving criminal identification, simple and complex disputed paternity and DNA mixtures.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-AOAS235 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Calculating and understanding the value of any type of match evidence when there are potential testing errors

It is well known that Bayes’ theorem (with likelihood ratios) can be used to calculate the impact of evidence, such as a ‘match’ of some feature of a person. Typically the feature of interest is the DNA profile, but the method applies in principle to any feature of a person or object, including not just DNA, fingerprints, or footprints, but also more basic features such as skin colour, height, hair colour or even name. Notwithstanding concerns about the extensiveness of databases of such features, a serious challenge to the use of Bayes in such legal contexts is that its standard formulaic representations are not readily understandable to non-statisticians. Attempts to get round this problem usually involve representations based around some variation of an event tree. While this approach works well in explaining the most trivial instance of Bayes’ theorem (involving a single hypothesis and a single piece of evidence) it does not scale up to realistic situations. In particular, even with a single piece of match evidence, if we wish to incorporate the possibility that there are potential errors (both false positives and false negatives) introduced at any stage in the investigative process, matters become very complex. As a result we have observed expert witnesses (in different areas of speciality) routinely ignore the possibility of errors when presenting their evidence. To counter this, we produce what we believe is the first full probabilistic solution of the simple case of generic match evidence incorporating both classes of testing errors. Unfortunately, the resultant event tree solution is too complex for intuitive comprehension. And, crucially, the event tree also fails to represent the causal information that underpins the argument. In contrast, we also present a simple-to-construct graphical Bayesian Network (BN) solution that automatically performs the calculations and may also be intuitively simpler to understand. Although there have been multiple previous applications of BNs for analysing forensic evidence—including very detailed models for the DNA matching problem, these models have not widely penetrated the expert witness community. Nor have they addressed the basic generic match problem incorporating the two types of testing error. Hence we believe our basic BN solution provides an important mechanism for convincing experts—and eventually the legal community—that it is possible to rigorously analyse and communicate the full impact of match evidence on a case, in the presence of possible error

A response to “Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: a closer look” by Lund and Iyer

Recently, Lund and Iyer (L&I) raised an argument regarding the use of likelihood ratios in court. In our view, their argument is based on a lack of understanding of the paradigm. L&I argue that the decision maker should not accept the expert’s likelihood ratio without further consideration. This is agreed by all parties. In normal practice, there is often considerable and proper exploration in court of the basis for any probabilistic statement. We conclude that L&I argue against a practice that does not exist and which no one advocates. Further we conclude that the most informative summary of evidential weight is the likelihood ratio. We state that this is the summary that should be presented to a court in every scientific assessment of evidential weight with supporting information about how it was constructed and on what it was based

Bayesian Networks and Influence Diagrams

Bayesian networks are graphical models that have been developed in the field of artificial intelligence as a framework to help researchers and practitioners apply probability theory to inference problems of substantive size as encountered in real-world applications. Influence diagrams (Bayesian decision networks) extend Bayesian networks to a modeling environment for coherent decision analysis under uncertainty. This article provides an overview of these methods and explains their contribution to the body of formal methods for the study, development and implementation of probabilistic procedures for assessing the probative value of scientific evidence and the coherent analysis of related questions of decision-making

2023 SDSU Data Science Symposium Presentation Abstracts

This document contains abstracts for presentations and posters 2023 SDSU Data Science Symposium