Beyond uniqueness: The birthday paradox, source attribution and individualization in forensic science testimony

David H. Kaye

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

For many decades, forensic science identification experts have insisted that they can 'individualize' traces such as fingerprints and toolmarks to the one and only one object that produced them. They have relied on a theory of global uniqueness of patterns as the basis for such individualization. Although forensic practitioners and theorists are moving toward a more probabilistic understanding of pattern matching, textbooks and reference works continue to assert that uniqueness justifies individualization and that experience demonstrates discernible uniqueness. One response to the last claim applies a famous problem in probability theory-the Birthday Problem-to the forensic realm to show that even an extensive record of uniqueness does little to prove that all such patterns are unique. This essay describes the probabilistic reasoning and its limits. It argues that the logic of the Birthday Paradox does indeed undercut the theory of global, general uniqueness, but that the reasoning is logically compatible with opinion testimony that a specific object is nearly certain to be the source of a pattern or trace. It also notes some alternatives to categorical claims of individualization, whether those claims are based on the theory of global, general uniqueness or instead on some less sweeping and more defensible theory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-11
Number of pages9
JournalLaw, Probability and Risk
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2013

Fingerprint

Forensic Science
individualization
Paradox
testimony
attribution
Uniqueness
science
Birthday Problem
Trace
Probabilistic Reasoning
Sweeping
textbook
Probability Theory
Pattern Matching
Fingerprint
Categorical
Justify
Individualization
Birthday
Testimony

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Philosophy
  • Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
  • Law

Cite this

@article{49e895706f914eadb6b7706eb091d689,
title = "Beyond uniqueness: The birthday paradox, source attribution and individualization in forensic science testimony",
abstract = "For many decades, forensic science identification experts have insisted that they can 'individualize' traces such as fingerprints and toolmarks to the one and only one object that produced them. They have relied on a theory of global uniqueness of patterns as the basis for such individualization. Although forensic practitioners and theorists are moving toward a more probabilistic understanding of pattern matching, textbooks and reference works continue to assert that uniqueness justifies individualization and that experience demonstrates discernible uniqueness. One response to the last claim applies a famous problem in probability theory-the Birthday Problem-to the forensic realm to show that even an extensive record of uniqueness does little to prove that all such patterns are unique. This essay describes the probabilistic reasoning and its limits. It argues that the logic of the Birthday Paradox does indeed undercut the theory of global, general uniqueness, but that the reasoning is logically compatible with opinion testimony that a specific object is nearly certain to be the source of a pattern or trace. It also notes some alternatives to categorical claims of individualization, whether those claims are based on the theory of global, general uniqueness or instead on some less sweeping and more defensible theory.",
author = "Kaye, {David H.}",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/lpr/mgs031",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "3--11",
journal = "Law, Probability and Risk",
issn = "1470-8396",
publisher = "Bell & Bain Ltd",
number = "1",

}

Beyond uniqueness : The birthday paradox, source attribution and individualization in forensic science testimony. / Kaye, David H.

In: Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 12, No. 1, 01.03.2013, p. 3-11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Beyond uniqueness

T2 - The birthday paradox, source attribution and individualization in forensic science testimony

AU - Kaye, David H.

PY - 2013/3/1

Y1 - 2013/3/1

N2 - For many decades, forensic science identification experts have insisted that they can 'individualize' traces such as fingerprints and toolmarks to the one and only one object that produced them. They have relied on a theory of global uniqueness of patterns as the basis for such individualization. Although forensic practitioners and theorists are moving toward a more probabilistic understanding of pattern matching, textbooks and reference works continue to assert that uniqueness justifies individualization and that experience demonstrates discernible uniqueness. One response to the last claim applies a famous problem in probability theory-the Birthday Problem-to the forensic realm to show that even an extensive record of uniqueness does little to prove that all such patterns are unique. This essay describes the probabilistic reasoning and its limits. It argues that the logic of the Birthday Paradox does indeed undercut the theory of global, general uniqueness, but that the reasoning is logically compatible with opinion testimony that a specific object is nearly certain to be the source of a pattern or trace. It also notes some alternatives to categorical claims of individualization, whether those claims are based on the theory of global, general uniqueness or instead on some less sweeping and more defensible theory.

AB - For many decades, forensic science identification experts have insisted that they can 'individualize' traces such as fingerprints and toolmarks to the one and only one object that produced them. They have relied on a theory of global uniqueness of patterns as the basis for such individualization. Although forensic practitioners and theorists are moving toward a more probabilistic understanding of pattern matching, textbooks and reference works continue to assert that uniqueness justifies individualization and that experience demonstrates discernible uniqueness. One response to the last claim applies a famous problem in probability theory-the Birthday Problem-to the forensic realm to show that even an extensive record of uniqueness does little to prove that all such patterns are unique. This essay describes the probabilistic reasoning and its limits. It argues that the logic of the Birthday Paradox does indeed undercut the theory of global, general uniqueness, but that the reasoning is logically compatible with opinion testimony that a specific object is nearly certain to be the source of a pattern or trace. It also notes some alternatives to categorical claims of individualization, whether those claims are based on the theory of global, general uniqueness or instead on some less sweeping and more defensible theory.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875355963&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875355963&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/lpr/mgs031

DO - 10.1093/lpr/mgs031

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84875355963

VL - 12

SP - 3

EP - 11

JO - Law, Probability and Risk

JF - Law, Probability and Risk

SN - 1470-8396

IS - 1

ER -