IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01277-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new uniform framework of source attribution in forensic science

Author

Listed:
  • Zhihui Li

    (Ministry of Public Security)

  • Yao Liu

    (Ministry of Public Security)

  • Xiyuan Hu

    (Nanjing University of Science and Technology)

  • Guiqiang Wang

    (Ministry of Public Security)

Abstract

Scientific principles of forensic source identification have attracted widespread interest in recent years. Among those presented principles and theorems, the Bayes inference was regarded as one of the most scientific principles. In this paper, we argue that the Bayes theorem is in challenge when used as principal basis for forensic source identification. Furthermore, two novel concepts: feature-matching value and feature-matching identification value are proposed inspired by the basic ideas of information theory. Based on these two concepts, a new framework is established to describe the source identification principles of forensic science. The proposed source identification principle uses deduction logic structure, and unifies the three existing source identification paradigms. The newly proposed framework is expected to provide a solid scientific basis for the source attribution methods in forensic science.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhihui Li & Yao Liu & Xiyuan Hu & Guiqiang Wang, 2022. "A new uniform framework of source attribution in forensic science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01277-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01277-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01277-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01277-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C. Neumann & I. W. Evett & J. Skerrett, 2012. "Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 175(2), pages 371-415, April.
    2. Ronald J. Allen & Michael S. Pardo, 2007. "The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 107-140, January.
    3. Norman Fenton, 2011. "Improve statistics in court," Nature, Nature, vol. 479(7371), pages 36-37, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonio Nicita & Matteo Rizzolli, 2014. "In Dubio Pro Reo. Behavioral Explanations of Pro-defendant Bias in Procedures," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(3), pages 554-580.
    2. Anthony C Constantinou & Norman Fenton, 2017. "The future of the London Buy-To-Let property market: Simulation with temporal Bayesian Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-30, June.
    3. Edward K. Cheng, 2014. "Comment on Dawid, Faigman, and Fienberg (2014)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(3), pages 396-400, August.
    4. Jonathan J. Koehler, 2011. "If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(s1), pages 21-48, December.
    5. Lillestøl, Jostein, 2018. "Sample statistics as convincing evidence: A tax fraud case," Discussion Papers 2018/12, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    6. Matteo Rizzolli & Margherita Saraceno, 2013. "Better that ten guilty persons escape: punishment costs explain the standard of evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 395-411, June.
    7. Matteo Rizzolli & Margherita Saraceno, 2009. "Better that X guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," Working Papers 168, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2009.
    8. Jan Hannig & Hari Iyer, 2022. "Testing for calibration discrepancy of reported likelihood ratios in forensic science," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 267-301, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01277-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.