Using subsampling to estimate the strength of handwriting evidence via score-based likelihood ratios.

The likelihood ratio paradigm has been studied as a means for quantifying the strength of evidence for a variety of forensic evidence types. Although the concept of a likelihood ratio as a comparison of the plausibility of evidence under two propositions (or hypotheses) is straightforward, a number of issues arise when one considers how to go about estimating a likelihood ratio. In this paper, we illustrate one possible approach to estimating a likelihood ratio in comparative handwriting analysis. The novelty of our proposed approach relies on generating simulated writing samples from a collection of writing samples from a known source to form a database for estimating the distribution associated with the numerator of a likelihood ratio. We illustrate this approach using documents collected from 432 writers under controlled conditions.

[1]  S. Zabell,et al.  Benjamin Peirce and the Howland Will , 1980 .

[2]  D. W. Scott,et al.  Multivariate Density Estimation, Theory, Practice and Visualization , 1992 .

[3]  I. Evett,et al.  Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists , 1998 .

[4]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  Interpreting DNA Evidence: A Review , 2003 .

[5]  I. Evett,et al.  More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[6]  Donald T. Gantz,et al.  Pictographic matching: a graph-based approach towards a language independent document exploitation platform , 2004, HDP '04.

[7]  Bill Thompson.  The Nature of Statistical Evidence , 2007 .

[8]  Matthieu Schmittbuhl,et al.  Handwriting Evidence Evaluation Based on the Shape of Characters: Application of Multivariate Likelihood Ratios *,† , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

[9]  Bernard Robertson,et al.  Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom , 1995 .

[10]  Donald T. Gantz,et al.  Construction and evaluation of classifiers for forensic document analysis , 2010, 1004.0678.

[11]  Colin Aitken,et al.  Evaluation of trace evidence in the form of multivariate data , 2004 .

[12]  M. Reeves,et al.  Interval likelihood ratios: Another advantage for the evidence-based diagnostician , 2003 .

[13]  Bruno Dujardin,et al.  Likelihood ratios: A real improvement for clinical decision making? , 1994, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[14]  Didier Meuwly,et al.  The inference of identity in forensic speaker recognition , 2000, Speech Commun..

[15]  Colin Aitken,et al.  The use of statistics in forensic science , 1991 .

[16]  R. Royall.  Statistical Evidence: A Likelihood Paradigm , 1997 .

[17]  I. Evett,et al.  Earmarks as evidence: a critical review. , 2001, Journal of forensic sciences.

[18]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Computation of Likelihood Ratios in Fingerprint Identification for Configurations of Any Number of Minutiæ , 2007, Journal of forensic sciences.

[19]  Roy Huber,et al.  Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals , 1999 .

[20]  Thierry Paquet,et al.  A writer identification and verification system , 2005, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[21]  Matthieu Schmittbuhl,et al.  Probabilistic evaluation of handwriting evidence: likelihood ratio for authorship , 2008 .

[22]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework , 1998 .

[23]  Kirk Lubbes.  Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Hardcopy document processing , 2004, CIKM 2004.

[24]  J. Fritz,et al.  Examining diagnostic tests: an evidence-based perspective. , 2001, Physical therapy.

[25]  James M. Curran,et al.  The Statistical Interpretation of Forensic Glass Evidence , 2003 .

[26]  D. Balding.  Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles , 2005 .

[27]  David Lindley,et al.  A problem in forensic science , 1977 .

[28]  Sargur N. Srihari,et al.  A statistical model for writer verification , 2005, Eighth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR'05).

[29]  D Meuwly,et al.  Forensic individualisation from biometric data. , 2006, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[30]  John Goodier,et al.  The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics (3rd edition) , 2007 .

[31]  Franco Taroni,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2004 .

[32]  C Champod,et al.  Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions. , 2004, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[33]  Sung-Hyuk Cha,et al.  Individuality of handwriting. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.

[34]  I. Evett,et al.  A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .

[35]  J A Lambert,et al.  The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[36]  Sargur N. Srihari,et al.  On Computing Strength of Evidence for Writer Verification , 2007 .

[37]  B. Everitt.  The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics , 1998 .