{"title":"从基于特定来源的特征到基于共同来源的分数的似然比系统:对星星进行排名","authors":"P. Vergeer","doi":"10.1093/lpr/mgad005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article studies expected performance and practical feasibility of the most commonly used classes of source-level likelihood-ratio (LR) systems when applied to a trace–reference comparison problem. The article compares performance of these classes of LR systems (used to update prior odds) to each other and to the use of prior odds only, using strictly proper scoring rules as performance measures. It also explores practical feasibility of the classes of LR systems. The present analysis allows for a ranking of these classes of LR systems: from specific-source feature-based to common-source anchored or non-anchored score-based. A trade-off between performance and practical feasibility is observed, meaning that the best performing class of LR systems is the hardest to realize in practice, while the least performing class is the easiest to realize in practice. The other classes of LR systems are in between the two extremes. The one positive exception is a common-source feature-based LR system, with good performance and relatively low experimental demands. This article also argues against the claim that some classes of LR systems should not be used, by showing that all systems have merit (when updating prior odds) over just using the prior odds (i.e. not using the LR system).","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From specific-source feature-based to common-source score-based likelihood-ratio systems: ranking the stars\",\"authors\":\"P. Vergeer\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lpr/mgad005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article studies expected performance and practical feasibility of the most commonly used classes of source-level likelihood-ratio (LR) systems when applied to a trace–reference comparison problem. The article compares performance of these classes of LR systems (used to update prior odds) to each other and to the use of prior odds only, using strictly proper scoring rules as performance measures. It also explores practical feasibility of the classes of LR systems. The present analysis allows for a ranking of these classes of LR systems: from specific-source feature-based to common-source anchored or non-anchored score-based. A trade-off between performance and practical feasibility is observed, meaning that the best performing class of LR systems is the hardest to realize in practice, while the least performing class is the easiest to realize in practice. The other classes of LR systems are in between the two extremes. The one positive exception is a common-source feature-based LR system, with good performance and relatively low experimental demands. This article also argues against the claim that some classes of LR systems should not be used, by showing that all systems have merit (when updating prior odds) over just using the prior odds (i.e. not using the LR system).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law Probability & Risk\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law Probability & Risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Probability & Risk","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
From specific-source feature-based to common-source score-based likelihood-ratio systems: ranking the stars
This article studies expected performance and practical feasibility of the most commonly used classes of source-level likelihood-ratio (LR) systems when applied to a trace–reference comparison problem. The article compares performance of these classes of LR systems (used to update prior odds) to each other and to the use of prior odds only, using strictly proper scoring rules as performance measures. It also explores practical feasibility of the classes of LR systems. The present analysis allows for a ranking of these classes of LR systems: from specific-source feature-based to common-source anchored or non-anchored score-based. A trade-off between performance and practical feasibility is observed, meaning that the best performing class of LR systems is the hardest to realize in practice, while the least performing class is the easiest to realize in practice. The other classes of LR systems are in between the two extremes. The one positive exception is a common-source feature-based LR system, with good performance and relatively low experimental demands. This article also argues against the claim that some classes of LR systems should not be used, by showing that all systems have merit (when updating prior odds) over just using the prior odds (i.e. not using the LR system).
期刊介绍:
Law, Probability & Risk is a fully refereed journal which publishes papers dealing with topics on the interface of law and probabilistic reasoning. These are interpreted broadly to include aspects relevant to the interpretation of scientific evidence, the assessment of uncertainty and the assessment of risk. The readership includes academic lawyers, mathematicians, statisticians and social scientists with interests in quantitative reasoning.
The primary objective of the journal is to cover issues in law, which have a scientific element, with an emphasis on statistical and probabilistic issues and the assessment of risk.
Examples of topics which may be covered include communications law, computers and the law, environmental law, law and medicine, regulatory law for science and technology, identification problems (such as DNA but including other materials), sampling issues (drugs, computer pornography, fraud), offender profiling, credit scoring, risk assessment, the role of statistics and probability in drafting legislation, the assessment of competing theories of evidence (possibly with a view to forming an optimal combination of them). In addition, a whole new area is emerging in the application of computers to medicine and other safety-critical areas. New legislation is required to define the responsibility of computer experts who develop software for tackling these safety-critical problems.