Eric M. Warren PhD, John C. Handley PhD, H. David Sheets PhD
{"title":"交叉熵和对数似然比成本作为多结论分类结果量表的性能度量。","authors":"Eric M. Warren PhD, John C. Handley PhD, H. David Sheets PhD","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The inconclusive category in forensics reporting is the appropriate response in many cases, but it poses challenges in estimating an “error rate”. We discuss the use of a class of information-theoretic measures related to cross entropy as an alternative set of metrics that allows for performance evaluation of results presented using multi-category reporting scales. This paper shows how this class of performance metrics, and in particular the log likelihood ratio cost, which is already in use with likelihood ratio forensic reporting methods and in machine learning communities, can be readily adapted for use with the widely used multiple category conclusions scales. Bayesian credible intervals on these metrics can be estimated using numerical methods. The application of these metrics to published test results is shown. It is demonstrated, using these test results, that reducing the number of categories used in a proficiency test from five or six to three increases the cross entropy, indicating that the higher number of categories was justified, as it they increased the level of agreement with ground truth.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"70 2","pages":"589-606"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross entropy and log likelihood ratio cost as performance measures for multi-conclusion categorical outcomes scales\",\"authors\":\"Eric M. Warren PhD, John C. Handley PhD, H. David Sheets PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1556-4029.15686\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The inconclusive category in forensics reporting is the appropriate response in many cases, but it poses challenges in estimating an “error rate”. We discuss the use of a class of information-theoretic measures related to cross entropy as an alternative set of metrics that allows for performance evaluation of results presented using multi-category reporting scales. This paper shows how this class of performance metrics, and in particular the log likelihood ratio cost, which is already in use with likelihood ratio forensic reporting methods and in machine learning communities, can be readily adapted for use with the widely used multiple category conclusions scales. Bayesian credible intervals on these metrics can be estimated using numerical methods. The application of these metrics to published test results is shown. It is demonstrated, using these test results, that reducing the number of categories used in a proficiency test from five or six to three increases the cross entropy, indicating that the higher number of categories was justified, as it they increased the level of agreement with ground truth.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"volume\":\"70 2\",\"pages\":\"589-606\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15686\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15686","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cross entropy and log likelihood ratio cost as performance measures for multi-conclusion categorical outcomes scales
The inconclusive category in forensics reporting is the appropriate response in many cases, but it poses challenges in estimating an “error rate”. We discuss the use of a class of information-theoretic measures related to cross entropy as an alternative set of metrics that allows for performance evaluation of results presented using multi-category reporting scales. This paper shows how this class of performance metrics, and in particular the log likelihood ratio cost, which is already in use with likelihood ratio forensic reporting methods and in machine learning communities, can be readily adapted for use with the widely used multiple category conclusions scales. Bayesian credible intervals on these metrics can be estimated using numerical methods. The application of these metrics to published test results is shown. It is demonstrated, using these test results, that reducing the number of categories used in a proficiency test from five or six to three increases the cross entropy, indicating that the higher number of categories was justified, as it they increased the level of agreement with ground truth.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.