Skip to main content    

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

**Official websites use .gov**              A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.            

**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**              A **lock** (  LockA locked padlock) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.            

https://www.nist.gov/itl/iad/image-group/quantifying-weight-evidence-reading-material

            -  Topics  -  All Topics 
-  Advanced communications 
-  Artificial intelligence 
-  Bioscience 
-  Buildings and construction 
-  Chemistry 
-  Climate 
-  Cybersecurity 
-  Electronics 
-  Energy 
-  Environment 
-  Fire 
-  Forensic science 
-  Health 
-  Information technology 
-  Infrastructure 
-  Manufacturing 
-  Materials 
-  Mathematics and statistics 
-  Metrology 
-  Nanotechnology 
-  Neutron research 
-  Performance excellence 
-  Physics 
-  Public safety 
-  Resilience 
-  Standards 
-  Transportation 
 
            -  Publications 
            -  Labs & Major Programs  -  Laboratories    -  Communications Technology Laboratory 
  -  Engineering Laboratory 
  -  Information Technology Laboratory 
  -  Material Measurement Laboratory 
  -  Physical Measurement Laboratory 
-  User Facilities    -  NIST Center for Neutron Research 
  -  CNST NanoFab 
-  Research Test Beds 
-  Research Projects 
-  Tools & Instruments 
-  Major Programs    -  Baldrige Performance Excellence Program 
  -  CHIPS for America Initiative 
  -  Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
  -  Office of Advanced Manufacturing 
  -  Special Programs Office 
  -  Technology Partnerships Office 
 
            -  Services & Resources  -  Standards and Measurements    -  Calibration Services 
  -  Laboratory Accreditation (NVLAP) 
  -  Quality System 
  -  Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) 
  -  Standards.gov 
  -  Time Services 
  -  Office of Weights and Measures 
-  Software 
-  Data    -  Chemistry WebBook 
  -  National Vulnerability Database 
  -  Physical Reference Data 
  -  Standard Reference Data (SRD) 
-  Storefront 
-  License & Patents 
-  Computer Security Resource Center (CSRC) 
-  NIST Research Library 
 
            -  News & Events  -  News 
-  Events 
-  Blogs 
-  Feature Stories 
-  Awards 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Image Gallery 
-  Media Contacts 
 
            -  About NIST  -  About Us    -  Leadership 
  -  Organization Structure 
  -  Budget & Planning 
-  Contact Us 
-  Visit 
-  Careers    -  Student programs 
-  Work with NIST 
-  History    -  NIST Digital Archives 
  -  NIST Museum 
  -  NIST and the Nobel 
-  Educational Resources 
 

Information Technology LaboratoryInformation Access Division

## Image Group

-  Programs/Projects  Expand or Collapse    -  Fingerprint  Expand or Collapse      -  ANSI/NIST-ITL Standard 
    -  Fingerprint Compression  Expand or Collapse        -  WSQ Certification Procedure 
      -  Biometric Compression Information 
      -  JPEG 2000 Conformance Testing 
    -  Fingerprint Recognition  Expand or Collapse        -  Minutiae Interoperability Exchange (MINEX) 
      -  Proprietary Fingerprint Template Evaluations (PFT) 
      -  Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation (FpVTE) 
      -  Slap Fingerprint Segmentation Evaluation (Slapseg) 
      -  Biometric Quality 
      -  Evaluation of Latent Fingerprint Technologies (ELFT) 
    -  Next Generation Fingerprint Technologies  Expand or Collapse        -  Contactless Fingerprint Capture 
      -  Fast Tenprint Capture 
      -  Statistical Friction Ridge Analysis (SFRA) 
  -  Iris  Expand or Collapse      -  IRIS Experts Group II 
    -  Iris Challenge Evaluation (ICE) 
    -  Iris Exchange (IREX) 
    -  Multiple Biometric Evaluation (MBE) 
    -  Multiple Biometrics Grand Challenge (MBGC) 
  -  Face  Expand or Collapse      -  Chexia Face Recognition 
    -  Face Challenges 
    -  Face Recognition Grand Challenge (FRGC) 
    -  Face Recognition Prize Challenge (FRPC) 2017 
    -  Face Recognition Technology (FERET) 
    -  Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) Ongoing 
    -  Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) 
    -  Face and Ocular Challenge Series (FOCS) 
    -  Face in Video Evaluation (FIVE) 
    -  Multiple Biometric Evaluation (MBE) 
    -  Multiple Biometric Grand Challenge (MBGC) 
    -  Point and Shoot Face Recognition Challenge (PaSC) 
    -  Text Recognition Algorithm Independent Evaluation (TRAIT) 
  -  Tattoo  Expand or Collapse      -  Tattoo Recognition Technology - Evaluation (Tatt-E) 
    -  Tattoo Recognition Technology – Challenge (Tatt-C) 
  -  Biometrics 
  -  Legacy Projects  Expand or Collapse      -  Neural Networks 
    -  Optical Character Recognition (OCR) 
    -  PATRIOT Act Research 
  -  Biometric Web Services (BWS) 
  -  Digital Video Exchange Standards 
-  Resources  Expand or Collapse    -  Biometric Special Databases and Software 
  -  Biometrics Evaluations 
  -  INCITS Standardized Biometric Data 
  -  Image Group Publications (by year) 
  -  Image Group Workshops/Conferences/Talks 
-  Staff Listing 
-  Publications 
-  Products and Services  Expand or Collapse    -  Image Group Open Source Server (NIGOS) 
  -  Encrypting Software/Data for Transmission to NIST 
  -  Software  Expand or Collapse      -  Biometric Evaluation Framework 
    -  Fingerprint Minutiae Viewer (FpMV) 
    -  Multimodal Biometric Application Resource Kit (MBARK) 
    -  NIST Biometric Image Software (NBIS) 
    -  BiomAPP - NIST Biometric Data Interchange Format Software Tools 
    -  BiomDI - Software tools supporting Standard Biometrics Data Interchange Formats 
    -  Dental Encoding Translator Applications Suite (DEnTAS) 
    -  Development of NFIQ 2.0 
    -  NIST Fingerprint Registration and Comparison Tool (NFRaCT) 
    -  Public Domain OCR 
    -  Video-based Automatic System for Iris Recognition (VASIR) 

## Connect with us

Facebook

# Quantifying the Weight of Evidence Reading Material

## Share

Facebook

Linkedin

Twitter

Email

We have assembled a set of influential and seminal papers relevant to the quantification of the weight of evidence. We invite suggestions to expand this list. Please send your suggestions to tc.forensicweightofevidence [at] nist.gov (tc[dot]forensicweightofevidence[at]nist[dot]gov).

**Background:**

Parker (1966) and Evett (1977) are among the early papers on the statistical methods used to quantify the weight of forensic evidence. Their methods are based on testing the hypothesis of having two sets of glass fragment evidence from the same source versus the hypothesis of having them from different sources. A classic paper by Lindley (1977) gives a Bayesian viewpoint on the ratio between the same-source probability and the different-source probability. The ratio is also the ratio of the posterior odds to the prior odds, and is referred to as a Bayesian factor, or likelihood ratio. The likelihood ratio provides a qualitative approach to weigh the evidence and to arrive at the posterior odds of determining the same source versus different sources. If the prior odds can be assumed to be 1, the likelihood ratio is the same as the posterior odds. It also uses probabilities of evidence under the viewpoints from both the prosecution side and the defense side. The likelihood ratio has gained popularity since Lindley's paper. As a valuable tool, the likelihood ratio has been used on matching glass fragments in Aitken and Lucy (2004) by accounting for multivariate elemental ratios within the fragments. It has since been extended to address source-matching and classification in other forensic disciplines such as hair, fiber, DNA profiling, handwriting, and fingerprinting. Peabody (1983) and Aitken (1986) discuss the use of the likelihood ratio in discriminating animal hair samples with parametric and nonparametric estimation techniques. In Evett, et al. (1987), the numerator and the denominator are calculated based on the hypotheses of whether the fiber sample comes from the same source as a control sample or from a different source. Berry (1991) and Berry, et al. (1992) investigate the likelihood ratio of guilt vs. innocence by incorporating DNA information. Weir (2007) presents recent advances in the likelihood ratio estimation in DNA profiling in forensics and discusses potentially complex statistical issues related to family and population. Jackson, et al. (2006) presents a general view on how to use prior odds, the likelihood ratio, and the resulting posterior odds in the court proceedings.

Bozza (2008) constructs the likelihood ratio using multivariate continuous variables related to handwriting. Saunders, et al. (2011) built classifiers based on the categorical types of handwriting, and Hepler, et al. (2012) developed a method to calculate the likelihood ratio from similarity scores of handwritten documents. Fingerprinting for individualization to a specific suspect is found to be more complex than DNA profiling (Stoney, 1991). Neumann, et al. (2012) developed a likelihood ratio approach in fingerprinting based on multivariate minutiae attributes. The method mainly aims at identifying fingerprints from the same finger. Neumann, et al. (2011) considers a similar approach for ten fingers. ****

**General**

Trial By Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal ProcessLaurence H. TribeHarvard Law Review Volume 84 Number 6, April 1971.

Lay Understanding of Forensic Statistics: Evaluation of Random Match Probabilities, Likelihood Ratios, and Verbal EquivalentsWilliam C. Thompson and Eryn J. NewmanLaw and Human Behavior, Vol 39(4), Aug 2015, 332-349

Royal Statistical Society GuidelinesThe guides look at communicating and interpreting statistical evidence in the administration of criminal justice. They are intended to assist judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and other expert witnesses in coping with the demands of modern criminal litigation.

The Nature of Forensic Science Opinion –A Possible Framework to Guide Thinking and  Practice in Investigation and in Court ProceedingsGraham Jackson, Christophe Champod, Ian W EvettAdvance Forensic Science, Dundee, UK

Fingerprint Source BookU.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

**Statistical Methods**

Equal prior probabilities: Can one do any better?A. Biedermann, F. Taroni, P. GarbolinoForensic Science International 172 (2007)85–93

Traditional conclusions in footwear examinations versus the use of the Bayesian approach and likelihood ratio: a review of a recent UK appellate court decisionWilliam J. BodziakLaw,Probability and Risk (2012) 11,279–287

Inadequacies of posterior probabilities for the assessment of scientific evidenceTaroni F.Law, Probability and Risk (2005) 4, 89−114

Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systemsGeoffrey Stewart MorrisonScience and Justice 51 (2011) 91–98

The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court:a response to R v TGeoffrey Stewart Morrison

Forensic strength of evidence statements should preferably be likelihood ratios calculated using relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models – a response to Lennard (2013) Fingerprint identification: how far have we come?Geoffrey Stewart Morrison and Reinoud D. StoelAustralian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2014Vol. 46, No. 3, 282–292, 

Statistics in forensic scienceJames M. Curran

Assessing uncertainty in DNA evidence caused by sampling effectsJ.M. Curran, J. S. Buckleton, C.M. Triggs, B.S. Weir

Confidence Interval of the Likelihood Ratio Associated with Mixed Stain DNA EvidenceGary W. Beecham,Ph.D. and Bruce S. Weir, Ph.D.J Forensic Sci, January 2011, Vol. 56, No. S1 doi:10.1111/j.1556 4029.2010.01600.x onlinelibrary.wiley.com

**Statistical Interpretation**

Extending the Confusion About Bayes Bernard Robertson, G. A. Vignaux and Charles E. H. Berger

Uncertainty and LR: to integrate or not to integrate, that's the questionM.J. Sjerps, I. Alberink, A. Bolck, R. Stoel, P. Vergeer and J.H. van ZantenOxford Journals the Law, Probability and Risk

Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratioFranco Taroni, Silvia Bozza, Alex Biedermann, and Colin AitkenOxford Journals the Law, Probability and Risk

Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: the new epistemology of forensic identification Simon A. ColeLaw, Probability and Risk (2009) 8, 233−255

Discussion paper: Hard cases make bad law—reactions to R v T William C. ThompsonLaw, Probability and Risk (2012) 11, 347–359

RejoinderFranco Taroni, Silvia Bozza, Alex Biedermann, and Colin AitkenLaw, Probability and Risk 2016 15: 31-34 

The Role of the Subjectivist Position in the Probabilization of Forensic ScienceAlex BiedermannJournal of Forensic Science and Medicine, Vol 1, Issue 2,, July 2015, pp 140–148.

## Technical Colloquium Links

                      - Program
                      - TC Homepage

### 

## Organizers

                      - NIST Biometrics
                      - NIST Forensics
                      - NIST

Information technologyBiometricsData and informaticsUncertainty quantification

### HEADQUARTERS

301-975-2000

Webmaster | Contact Us | Our Other Offices

TwitterFacebookLinkedInInstagramYouTubeGiphyRSS FeedMailing List

Feedback

            -  Site Privacy 
            -  Accessibility 
            -  Privacy Program 
            -  Copyrights 
            -  Vulnerability Disclosure 
            -  No Fear Act Policy 
            -  FOIA 
            -  Environmental Policy 
            -  Scientific Integrity 
            -  Information Quality Standards 
            -  Commerce.gov 
            -  Science.gov 
            -  USA.gov 
            -  Vote.gov