A strawman with machine learning for a brain A response to Biedermann (2022) the strange persistence of (source) “identification” claims in forensic literature

Open Access
Authors
  • G.S. Morrison
  • D. Ramos
  • R.J.F. Ypma
  • N. Basu
  • K. de Bie
  • E. Enzinger
  • Z. Geradts ORCID logo
  • D. Meuwly
  • D. van der Vloed
  • P. Vergeer
  • P. Weber
Publication date 2022
Journal Forensic Science International: Synergy
Article number 100230
Volume | Issue number 4
Number of pages 2
Organisations
  • Faculty of Science (FNWI) - Informatics Institute (IVI)
Abstract

We agree wholeheartedly with Biedermann (2022) FSI Synergy article 100222 in its criticism of research publications that treat forensic inference in source attribution as an “identification” or “individualization” task. We disagree, however, with its criticism of the use of machine learning for forensic inference. The argument it makes is a strawman argument. There is a growing body of literature on the calculation of well-calibrated likelihood ratios using machine-learning methods and relevant data, and on the validation under casework conditions of such machine-learning-based systems.

Document type Comment/Letter to the editor
Note Reply to: A. Biedermann (2022) The strange persistence of (source) “identification” claims in forensic literature through descriptivism, diagnosticism and machinism, Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy 4, article 100222.
Language English
Published at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100230
Other links https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85130344512
Downloads
1-s2.0-S2589871X22000158-main (Final published version)
Permalink to this page
Back