A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the "match"/"non-match" stage.
2017
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.
Keywords:
- Correction
- Source
- Cite
- Save
- Machine Reading By IdeaReader
13
References
16
Citations
NaN
KQI