A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage

Geoffrey Stewart Morrison; David H. Kaye; David J. Balding; Duncan Taylor; Philip Dawid; Colin G G Aitken; Simone Gittelson; Grzegorz Zadora; Bernard Robertson; Sheila Willis; Susan Pope; Martin Neil; Kristy A. Martire; Amanda Hepler; Richard D. Gill; Allan Jamieson; Jacob de Zoete; R. Brent Ostrum; Amke Caliebe

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage

Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, David H. Kaye, David J. Balding, Duncan Taylor, Philip Dawid, Colin G G Aitken, Simone Gittelson, Grzegorz Zadora, Bernard Robertson, Sheila Willis, Susan Pope, Martin Neil, Kristy A. Martire, Amanda Hepler, Richard D. Gill, Allan Jamieson, Jacob de Zoete, R. Brent Ostrum, Amke Caliebe

Penn State Law (University Park)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

This letter comments on the report “Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods” recently released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The report advocates a procedure for evaluation of forensic evidence that is a two-stage procedure in which the first stage is “match”/“non-match” and the second stage is empirical assessment of sensitivity (correct acceptance) and false alarm (false acceptance) rates. Almost always, quantitative data from feature-comparison methods are continuously-valued and have within-source variability. We explain why a two-stage procedure is not appropriate for this type of data, and recommend use of statistical procedures which are appropriate.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	e7-e9
Journal	Forensic science international
Volume	272
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018
State	Published - Mar 1 2017

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Access to Document

10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

Cite this

Morrison, G. S., Kaye, D. H., Balding, D. J., Taylor, D., Dawid, P., Aitken, C. G. G., Gittelson, S., Zadora, G., Robertson, B., Willis, S., Pope, S., Neil, M., Martire, K. A., Hepler, A., Gill, R. D., Jamieson, A., de Zoete, J., Ostrum, R. B., & Caliebe, A. (2017). A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage. Forensic science international, 272, e7-e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart ; Kaye, David H. ; Balding, David J. ; Taylor, Duncan ; Dawid, Philip ; Aitken, Colin G G ; Gittelson, Simone ; Zadora, Grzegorz ; Robertson, Bernard ; Willis, Sheila ; Pope, Susan ; Neil, Martin ; Martire, Kristy A. ; Hepler, Amanda ; Gill, Richard D. ; Jamieson, Allan ; de Zoete, Jacob ; Ostrum, R. Brent ; Caliebe, Amke. / A comment on the PCAST report : Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage. In: Forensic science international. 2017 ; Vol. 272. pp. e7-e9.

@article{2ea55ebf2f924d04b14b86424d90f303,

title = "A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage",

abstract = "This letter comments on the report “Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods” recently released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The report advocates a procedure for evaluation of forensic evidence that is a two-stage procedure in which the first stage is “match”/“non-match” and the second stage is empirical assessment of sensitivity (correct acceptance) and false alarm (false acceptance) rates. Almost always, quantitative data from feature-comparison methods are continuously-valued and have within-source variability. We explain why a two-stage procedure is not appropriate for this type of data, and recommend use of statistical procedures which are appropriate.",

author = "Morrison, {Geoffrey Stewart} and Kaye, {David H.} and Balding, {David J.} and Duncan Taylor and Philip Dawid and Aitken, {Colin G G} and Simone Gittelson and Grzegorz Zadora and Bernard Robertson and Sheila Willis and Susan Pope and Martin Neil and Martire, {Kristy A.} and Amanda Hepler and Gill, {Richard D.} and Allan Jamieson and {de Zoete}, Jacob and Ostrum, {R. Brent} and Amke Caliebe",

note = "Funding Information: This work was funded in-part by a fellowship awarded to Morrison by the Simons Foundation. Morrison, Balding, Dawid, Aitken, Robertson, Pope, Neil, Martire, Gill, Jamieson, de Zoete, and Caliebe would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences for its hospitality during the program Probability and Statistics in Forensic Science which was supported by EPSRC Grant Number EP/K032208/1. All opinions expressed are those of the authors/signatories and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of any funding agencies or organizations with which they are affiliated. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

year = "2017",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "272",

pages = "e7--e9",

journal = "Forensic Science International",

issn = "0379-0738",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Morrison, GS, Kaye, DH, Balding, DJ, Taylor, D, Dawid, P, Aitken, CGG, Gittelson, S, Zadora, G, Robertson, B, Willis, S, Pope, S, Neil, M, Martire, KA, Hepler, A, Gill, RD, Jamieson, A, de Zoete, J, Ostrum, RB & Caliebe, A 2017, 'A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage', Forensic science international, vol. 272, pp. e7-e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

A comment on the PCAST report : Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage. / Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart; Kaye, David H.; Balding, David J.; Taylor, Duncan; Dawid, Philip; Aitken, Colin G G; Gittelson, Simone; Zadora, Grzegorz; Robertson, Bernard; Willis, Sheila; Pope, Susan; Neil, Martin; Martire, Kristy A.; Hepler, Amanda; Gill, Richard D.; Jamieson, Allan; de Zoete, Jacob; Ostrum, R. Brent; Caliebe, Amke.

In: Forensic science international, Vol. 272, 01.03.2017, p. e7-e9.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comment on the PCAST report

T2 - Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage

AU - Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart

AU - Kaye, David H.

AU - Balding, David J.

AU - Taylor, Duncan

AU - Dawid, Philip

AU - Aitken, Colin G G

AU - Gittelson, Simone

AU - Zadora, Grzegorz

AU - Robertson, Bernard

AU - Willis, Sheila

AU - Pope, Susan

AU - Neil, Martin

AU - Martire, Kristy A.

AU - Hepler, Amanda

AU - Gill, Richard D.

AU - Jamieson, Allan

AU - de Zoete, Jacob

AU - Ostrum, R. Brent

AU - Caliebe, Amke

N1 - Funding Information: This work was funded in-part by a fellowship awarded to Morrison by the Simons Foundation. Morrison, Balding, Dawid, Aitken, Robertson, Pope, Neil, Martire, Gill, Jamieson, de Zoete, and Caliebe would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences for its hospitality during the program Probability and Statistics in Forensic Science which was supported by EPSRC Grant Number EP/K032208/1. All opinions expressed are those of the authors/signatories and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of any funding agencies or organizations with which they are affiliated. Publisher Copyright: © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - This letter comments on the report “Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods” recently released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The report advocates a procedure for evaluation of forensic evidence that is a two-stage procedure in which the first stage is “match”/“non-match” and the second stage is empirical assessment of sensitivity (correct acceptance) and false alarm (false acceptance) rates. Almost always, quantitative data from feature-comparison methods are continuously-valued and have within-source variability. We explain why a two-stage procedure is not appropriate for this type of data, and recommend use of statistical procedures which are appropriate.

AB - This letter comments on the report “Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods” recently released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The report advocates a procedure for evaluation of forensic evidence that is a two-stage procedure in which the first stage is “match”/“non-match” and the second stage is empirical assessment of sensitivity (correct acceptance) and false alarm (false acceptance) rates. Almost always, quantitative data from feature-comparison methods are continuously-valued and have within-source variability. We explain why a two-stage procedure is not appropriate for this type of data, and recommend use of statistical procedures which are appropriate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85005870143&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85005870143&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

M3 - Letter

C2 - 27817943

AN - SCOPUS:85005870143

VL - 272

SP - e7-e9

JO - Forensic Science International

JF - Forensic Science International

SN - 0379-0738

ER -

A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the “match”/“non-match” stage

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this