National Institute of Standards and Technology における超伝導研究及び生活

a b s t r a c t As illustrated by the mistaken, high-profile fingerprint identification of Brandon Mayfield in the Madrid Bomber case, and consistent with a recent critique by the National Academy of Sciences (2009), it is clear that the forensic sciences are subject to contextual bias and fraught with error. In this article, we describe classic psychological research on primacy, expectancy effects, and observer effects, all of which indicate that context can taint people's perceptions, judgments, and behaviors. Then we describe recent studies indicating that confessions and other types of information can set into motion forensic confirmation biases that corrupt lay witness perceptions and memories as well as the judgments of experts in various domains of forensic science. Finally, we propose best practices that would reduce bias in the forensic laboratory as well as its influence in the courts.

https://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/1%20Kassin%20Dror%20Kukucka%20(2013)%20-%20FCB.pdf

The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions.

Computational Intelligence and Feature Selection provides a high level audience with both the background and fundamental ideas behind feature selection with an emphasis on those techniques based on rough and fuzzy sets, including their hybridizations It introduces set theory, fuzzy set theory, rough set theory, and fuzzy-rough set theory, and illustrates the power and efficacy of the feature selection described through the use of real-world applications and worked examples Program files implementing major algorithms covered, together with the necessary instructions and datasets, are available on the Web

Computational Intelligence and Feature Selection: Rough and Fuzzy Approaches

Summary. The evaluation of measurements on characteristics of trace evidence found at a crime scene and on a suspect is an important part of forensic science. Five methods of assessment for the value of the evidence for multivariate data are described. Two are based on significance tests and three on the evaluation of likelihood ratios. The likelihood ratio which compares the probability of the measurements on the evidence assuming a common source for the crime scene and suspect evidence with the probability of the measurements on the evidence assuming different sources for the crime scene and suspect evidence is a well-documented measure of the value of the evidence. One of the likelihood ratio approaches transforms the data to a univariate projection based on the first principal component. The other two versions of the likelihood ratio for multivariate data account for correlation among the variables and for two levels of variation: that between sources and that within sources. One version assumes that between-source variability is modelled by a multivariate normal distribution; the other version models the variability with a multivariate kernel density estimate. Results are compared from the analysis of measurements on the elemental composition of glass.

Evaluation of trace evidence in the form of multivariate data

A display panel and a display device are provided. The display panel comprises a central region and peripheral regions. The peripheral regions are provided at two opposite ends of the display panel and have a first curvature; the central region is provided between the two opposite ends of the display panel and has a second curvature; and the second curvature of the central region is smaller than the first curvature of the peripheral regions.

Display panel and display device

The interpretation of forensic fingerprint evidence relies on the expertise of latent print examiners. The National Research Council of the National Academies and the legal and forensic sciences communities have called for research to measure the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners’ decisions, a challenging and complex problem in need of systematic analysis. Our research is focused on the development of empirical approaches to studying this problem. Here, we report on the first large-scale study of the accuracy and reliability of latent print examiners’ decisions, in which 169 latent print examiners each compared approximately 100 pairs of latent and exemplar fingerprints from a pool of 744 pairs. The fingerprints were selected to include a range of attributes and quality encountered in forensic casework, and to be comparable to searches of an automated fingerprint identification system containing more than 58 million subjects. This study evaluated examiners on key decision points in the fingerprint examination process; procedures used operationally include additional safeguards designed to minimize errors. Five examiners made false positive errors for an overall false positive rate of 0.1%. Eighty-five percent of examiners made at least one false negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5%. Independent examination of the same comparisons by different participants (analogous to blind verification) was found to detect all false positive errors and the majority of false negative errors in this study. Examiners frequently differed on whether fingerprints were suitable for reaching a conclusion.

/pdf/accuracy-and-reliability-of-forensic-latent-fingerprint-2nzg7jr8do.pdf

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions

The interpretation of forensic fingerprint evidence relies on the expertise of latent print examiners. We tested latent print examiners on the extent to which they reached consistent decisions. This study assessed intra-examiner repeatability by retesting 72 examiners on comparisons of latent and exemplar fingerprints, after an interval of approximately seven months; each examiner was reassigned 25 image pairs for comparison, out of total pool of 744 image pairs. We compare these repeatability results with reproducibility (inter-examiner) results derived from our previous study. Examiners repeated 89.1% of their individualization decisions, and 90.1% of their exclusion decisions; most of the changed decisions resulted in inconclusive decisions. Repeatability of comparison decisions (individualization, exclusion, inconclusive) was 90.0% for mated pairs, and 85.9% for nonmated pairs. Repeatability and reproducibility were notably lower for comparisons assessed by the examiners as "difficult" than for "easy" or "moderate" comparisons, indicating that examiners' assessments of difficulty may be useful for quality assurance. No false positive errors were repeated (n = 4); 30% of false negative errors were repeated. One percent of latent value decisions were completely reversed (no value even for exclusion vs. of value for individualization). Most of the inter- and intra-examiner variability concerned whether the examiners considered the information available to be sufficient to reach a conclusion; this variability was concentrated on specific image pairs such that repeatability and reproducibility were very high on some comparisons and very low on others. Much of the variability appears to be due to making categorical decisions in borderline cases.

/pdf/repeatability-and-reproducibility-of-decisions-by-latent-50astrzrrk.pdf

Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners

Score-based likelihood ratios for handwriting evidence.

Assessing the clarity of friction ridge impressions.

Latent print examiners use their expertise to determine whether the information present in a comparison of two fingerprints (or palmprints) is sufficient to conclude that the prints were from the same source (individualization). When fingerprint evidence is presented in court, it is the examiner's determination—not an objective metric—that is presented. This study was designed to ascertain the factors that explain examiners' determinations of sufficiency for individualization. Volunteer latent print examiners (n = 170) were each assigned 22 pairs of latent and exemplar prints for examination, and annotated features, correspondence of features, and clarity. The 320 image pairs were selected specifically to control clarity and quantity of features. The predominant factor differentiating annotations associated with individualization and inconclusive determinations is the count of corresponding minutiae; other factors such as clarity provided minimal additional discriminative value. Examiners' counts of corresponding minutiae were strongly associated with their own determinations; however, due to substantial variation of both annotations and determinations among examiners, one examiner's annotation and determination on a given comparison is a relatively weak predictor of whether another examiner would individualize. The extensive variability in annotations also means that we must treat any individual examiner's minutia counts as interpretations of the (unknowable) information content of the prints: saying “the prints had N corresponding minutiae marked” is not the same as “the prints had N corresponding minutiae.” More consistency in annotations, which could be achieved through standardization and training, should lead to process improvements and provide greater transparency in casework.

/pdf/measuring-what-latent-fingerprint-examiners-consider-5gkepzpzzq.pdf

JoAnn Buscaglia

Papers

Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions

Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners

Score-based likelihood ratios for handwriting evidence.

Assessing the clarity of friction ridge impressions.

Measuring what latent fingerprint examiners consider sufficient information for individualization determinations.