A comment on the PCAST report: Skip the "match"/"non-match" stage

作者：Morrison Geoffrey Stewart^*; Kaye David H; Balding David J; Taylor Duncan; Dawid Philip; Aitken Colin G G; Gittelson Simone; Zadora Grzegorz; Robertson Bernard; Willis Sheila; Pope Susan; Neil Martin; Martire Kristy A; Hepler Amanda; Gill Richard D; Jamieson Allan; de Zoete Jacob; Ostrum R Brent; Caliebe Amke

来源：Forensic Science International, 2017, 272: E7-E9.

DOI：10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018

• PCAST report
• Forensic statistics
• Match/non-match
• Sensitivity False alarm
• Likelihood ratio

This letter comments on the report "Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods" recently released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The report advocates a procedure for evaluation of forensic evidence that is a two-stage procedure in which the first stage is "match"/"non-match" and the second stage is empirical assessment of sensitivity (correct acceptance) and false alarm (false acceptance) rates. Almost always, quantitative data from feature-comparison methods are continuously-valued and have within-source variability. We explain why a two-stage procedure is not appropriate for this type of data, and recommend use of statistical procedures which are appropriate.

• 出版日期2017-3
• 单位河北医科大学