Score based procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios – Scores should take account of both similarity and typicality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Score based procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios are popular across different branches of forensic science. They have two stages, first a function or model which takes measured features from known-source and questioned-source pairs as input and calculates scores as output, then a subsequent model which converts scores to likelihood ratios. We demonstrate that scores which are purely measures of similarity are not appropriate for calculating forensically interpretable likelihood ratios. In addition to taking account of similarity between the questioned-origin specimen and the known-origin sample, scores must also take account of the typicality of the questioned-origin specimen with respect to a sample of the relevant population specified by the defence hypothesis. We use Monte Carlo simulations to compare the output of three score based procedures with reference likelihood ratio values calculated directly from the fully specified Monte Carlo distributions. The three types of scores compared are: 1. non-anchored similarity-only scores; 2. non-anchored similarity and typicality scores; and 3. known-source anchored same-origin scores and questioned-source anchored different-origin scores. We also make a comparison with the performance of a procedure using a dichotomous "match"/"non-match" similarity score, and compare the performance of 1 and 2 on real data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".