1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
  4. Volume 11, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application

Volume 11, 2024

The Role of the Bayes Factor in the Evaluation of Evidence

Abstract

The use of the Bayes factor as a metric for the assessment of the probative value of forensic scientific evidence is largely supported by recommended standards in different disciplines. The application of Bayesian networks enables the consideration of problems of increasing complexity. The lack of a widespread consensus concerning key aspects of evidence evaluation and interpretation, such as the adequacy of a probabilistic framework for handling uncertainty or the method by which conclusions regarding how the strength of the evidence should be reported to a court, has meant the role of the Bayes factor in the administration of criminal justice has come under increasing challenge in recent years. We review the many advantages the Bayes factor has as an approach to the evaluation and interpretation of evidence.

Keyword(s): Bayes factor, Bayesian network, forensic science, likelihood ratio, probabilistic reasoning, scientific evidence, value of evidence
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040522-101020
2024-04-22
2024-05-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/statistics/11/1/annurev-statistics-040522-101020.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040522-101020&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aitken CGG, Chang YT, Buzzini P, Zadora G, Massonnet G. 2019.. The evaluation of evidence for microspectrophotometry data using functional data analysis. . Forensic Sci. Int. 305::110007
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aitken CGG, Chang YT, Buzzini P, Zadora G, Massonnet G. 2020.. Letter to the editor in response to Vergeer et al. (2020) FSI 314 (2020) 110388. . Forensic Sci. Int. 316::110478
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aitken CGG, Gammerman A. 1989.. Probabilistic reasoning in evidential assessment. . J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 29::303–16
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aitken CGG, Lucy D. 2004.. Evaluation of trace evidence in the form of multivariate data. . Appl. Stat. 53::109–22
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aitken CGG, Taroni F, Bozza S. 2021.. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Chichester, UK:: John Wiley & Sons. , 3rd ed..A review of the role of the Bayes factor for evaluation and interpretation of evidence.
  6. Aitken CGG, Taroni F, Bozza S. 2022.. Evidence, probability and relative plausibility. . Int. J. Evid. Proof 26:(4):309–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Allen RJ, Pardo MS. 2019.. Relative plausibility and its critics. . Int. J. Evid. Proof 23:(1/2):5–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Allen RJ, Pardo MS. 2023.. Evidence, probability, and relative plausibility: a response to Aitken, Taroni, and Bozza. . Int. J. Evid. Proof 27:(2):126–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ayer AJ. 1957.. The conception of probability as a logical relation. . In Observation and Interpretation, ed. S Körner , pp. 12–30. London:: Butterworths
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Barrett M, Sober E. 2020.. The requirement of total evidence: a reply to Epstein's critique. . Philos. Sci. 87::191–203
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Berger CEH, Slooten K. 2016.. The LR does not exist. . Sci. Justice 56::388–91
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F. 2009.. Probabilistic evidential assessment of gunshot residue particle evidence (part I): likelihood ratio calculation and case pre-assessment using Bayesian networks. . Forensic Sci. Int. 191::24–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F. 2011.. Probabilistic evidential assessment of gunshot residue particle evidence (part II): Bayesian parameter estimation for experimental count data. . Forensic Sci. Int. 206::103–10
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F, Aitken CGG. 2016.. Reframing the debate: a question of probability, not of likelihood ratio. . Sci. Justice 56::392–96
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Biedermann A, Bozza S, Taroni F, Aitken CGG. 2017.. The consequences of understanding expert probability reporting as a decision. . Sci. Justice 57::80–85
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bozza S, Taroni F, Biedermann A. 2022.. Bayes Factors for Forensic Decision Analyses with R. New York:: Springer A review of Bayesian decision analysis in forensic science with R code.
  17. Bozza S, Taroni F, Marquis R, Schmittbuhl M. 2008.. Probabilistic evaluation of handwriting evidence: likelihood ratio for authorship. . Appl. Stat. 57::329–41
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Buckleton JS, Robertson B, Curran J, Berger C, Taylor D, et al. 2020.. A review of likelihood ratios in forensic science based on a critique of Stiffelman “No longer the gold standard: probabilistic genotyping is changing the nature of DNA evidence in criminal trials. .” Forensic Sci. Int. 310::110251
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Carnap R. 1947.. On the application of inductive logic. . Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 8::133–48
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cohen LJ. 1977.. The Probable and the Provable. Oxford, UK:: Clarendon
  21. Crupi V, Tentori K. 2014.. State of the field: measuring information and confirmation. . Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 47::81–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. Crupi V, Tentori K. 2016.. Confirmation theory. . In Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Probability, ed. A Hajek, C Hitchcock , pp. 650–65. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Dawid AP. 2017.. Forensic likelihood ratio: statistical problems and pitfalls. . Sci. Justice 57::73–75
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dawid AP, Mortera J. 2021.. Bayesian networks in forensic science. . In Handbook of Forensic Statistics, ed. D Banks, K Kafadar, DH Kaye, M Tackett , pp. 165–97. Boca Raton, FL:: Chapman & Hall/CRC
     [Google Scholar]
  25. de Finetti B. 1930.. Fondamenti logici del ragionamento probabilistico. . Boll. Unione Matem. Ital. 9::258–61
     [Google Scholar]
  26. de Finetti B. 1931.. Sul significato soggettivo delle probabilitià. . Fundam. Math. 17::298–329
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. de Finetti B. 1940.. La teoria delle probabiliti nei suoi rapporti con i'analisi. . In Relazioni della XXVIII Riunione della Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze, pp. 27–35. Rome:: Soc. Ital. Prog. Sci.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. de Finetti B. 1989.. La probabilità: Guardarsi dalle contraffazioni!. In La Logica dell'Incerto, ed. M Mondadori , pp. 149–88. Milan:: Saggiatore
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Edwards W, Lindman H, Savage LJ. 1963.. Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. . Psychol. Rev. 70::193–242
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Eells E. 2000.. Review: The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory, by James M. Joyce. . Br. J. Philos. Sci. 51::893–900
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Eells E, Fitelson B. 2002.. Symmetries and asymmetries in evidential support. . Philos. Stud. 107::129–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. ENFSI (Eur. Netw. Forensic Sci. Inst.). 2015.. ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science. Rep. , ENFSI, Wiesbaden, Ger.: https://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/m1_guideline.pdf
  33. Evett IW. 1996.. Expert evidence and forensic misconceptions of the nature of exact science. . Sci. Justice 36::118–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Evett IW, Weir BS. 1998.. Interpreting DNA Evidence. Sunderland, MA:: Sinauer
  35. Fienberg SE. 1986.. Gatecrashers, blue buses, and the Bayesian representation of legal evidence. . Boston Univ. Law Rev. 66::693–99
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Fienberg SE, Schervish MJ. 1986.. The relevance of Bayesian inference for the presentation of statistical evidence and for legal decision making. . Boston Univ. Law Rev. 66::771–98
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Finkelstein MO, Fairley WB. 1970.. A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. . Harvard Law Rev. 83::489–517
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. Fitelson B. 1999.. The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. . Philos. Sci. 66::362–78
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Fitelson B. 2006.. Logical foundations of evidential support. . Philos. Sci. 73::500–12
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Fitelson B. 2011.. Favoring, likelihoodism, and Bayesianism. . Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 83::666–71
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. 2014.. Bayesian Data Analysis. Boca Raton, FL:: CRC. , 3rd ed..
  42. Gittelson S. 2013.. Evolving from inferences to decisions in forensic science. PhD Thesis , Sch. Crim. Justice, Univ. Lausanne, Lausanne, Switz.:
  43. Gittelson S, Bozza S, Biedermann A, Taroni F. 2013.. Decision-theoretic reflections on processing a fingermark. . Forensic Sci. Int. 226::e42–47
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Good IJ. 1950.. Probability and the Weighing of Evidence. London:: Griffin
  45. Good IJ. 1967.. On the principle of total evidence. . Br. J. Philos. Sci. 17::319–21
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Good IJ. 1979.. Studies in the history of probability and statistics. XXXVII. A.M. Turing's statistical work in World War II. . Biometrika 66::393–96
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Good IJ. 1985.. Weight of evidence: a brief survey (with discussion). . In Bayesian Statistics 2, ed. JM Bernardo, MH DeGroot, DV Lindley, AFM Smith , pp. 249–70. Amsterdam:: North-Holland
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Good IJ. 1989.. Weight of evidence and a compelling metaprinciple. . J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 31::121–23
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Good IJ. 1991.. Weight of evidence and the Bayesian likelihood ratio. . In The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science, ed. CGG Aitken, DA Stoney , pp. 85–106. Chichester, UK:: Ellis Horwood
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Hertwig R, Chase VM. 1998.. Many reasons or just one: how response mode affects reasoning in the conjunction problem. . Think. Reason. 4::319–52
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. Howson C, Urbach P. 1993.. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. Chicago:: Open Court. , 2nd ed..
  52. Jackson G. 2000.. The scientist and the scales of justice. . Sci. Justice 40::81–85
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Jeffrey RC. 1992.. Probability and the Art of Judgment. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
  54. Jeffrey RC, Hendrickson M. 1989.. Probabilizing pathology. . Proc. Aristot. Soc. 89::211–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Jeffreys H. 1983.. Theory of Probability. Oxford, UK:: Clarendon. , 3rd ed..
  56. Joyce H. 2005.. Career story: Consultant forensic statistician: Ian Evett. . Significance 2::34–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kafadar K. 2015.. Statistical issues in assessing forensic evidence. . Int. Stat. Rev. 83:(1):111–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Kaye DH. 1979.. Probability theory meets res ipsa loquitur. . Mich. Law Rev. 77::1456–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kaye DH. 1986.. Do we need a calculus of weight to understand proof beyond a reasonable doubt?. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 66::657–72
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Kaye DH, Sensabaugh G. 2011.. Reference guide on DNA identification evidence. . In Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, pp. 129–210. Washington, DC:: Natl. Acad. Press. , 3rd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Lauritzen SL, Spiegelhalter DJ. 1988.. Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems. . J. R. Stat. Soc. B 50::157–224
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Lempert RO. 1977.. Modeling relevance. . Mich. Law Rev. 75::1021–57
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Lempert RO. 1986.. The new evidence scholarship—analysing the process of proof. . Boston Univ. Law Rev. 66::439–77
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Lindley DV. 1977.. A problem in forensic science. . Biometrika 64:(2):207–13
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Lindley DV. 1985.. Making Decisions. Chichester, UK:: John Wiley & Sons. , 2nd ed..
  66. Lindley DV. 1991.. Probability. . In The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science, ed. CGG Aitken, DA Stoney , pp. 27–50. New York:: Ellis Horwood
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Lindley DV. 2014.. Understanding Uncertainty. Chichester, UK:: John Wiley & Sons. , 2nd ed..
  68. Locard E. 1940.. Traité de criminalistique. L'enquête criminelle. Lyon, Fr.:: Desvigne
  69. Maher P. 1996.. Probability captures the logic of scientific confirmation. . In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, ed. CR Hitchcock , pp. 69–93. Oxford, UK:: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Martire KA, Edmond G, Navarro DJ, Newell BR. 2017.. On the likelihood of “encapsulating all uncertainty. .” Sci. Justice 57::76–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. Meester R, Slooten K. 2020.. An epistemic interpretation of the posterior likelihood ratio distribution. . Law Probab. Risk 19::139–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Morrison GS. 2016.. Special issue on measuring and reporting the precision of forensic likelihood ratios: introduction to the debate. . Sci. Justice 56::371–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Morrison GS, Enzinger E. 2016.. What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be?. Sci. Justice 56::374–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Nesson C. 1985.. The evidence or the event? On judicial proof and the acceptability of verdicts. . Harvard Law Rev. 98::1357–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Nordgaard A, Ansell R, Drotz W, Jaeger L. 2012.. Scale of conclusions for the value of evidence. . Law Probab. Risk 11::1–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Ommen DM, Saunders CP, Neumann C. 2016.. An argument against presenting interval quantifications as a surrogate for the value of evidence. . Sci. Justice 56::383–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Ommen DM, Saunders CP, Neumann C. 2017.. The characterization of Monte Carlo errors for the quantification of the value of forensic evidence. . J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 87::1608–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Raiffa H, Schlaifer R. 1961.. Applied Statistical Decision Theory. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
  79. Roberts P, Aitken CGG. 2014.. The logic of forensic proof. Pract. Guide 3 , R. Stat. Soc. Work. Group Stat. Law, R. Stat. Soc., London: A discursive review of charting (Wigmore and Bayes nets) for the consideration of evidence.
  80. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. 1993.. Taking fact analysis seriously. . Mich. Law Rev. 91::1442–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. 1995.. Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Chichester, UK:: John Wiley & Sons
  82. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. 1998.. Explaining evidence logically. . New Law J. 148::159–62
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Robertson B, Vignaux GA, Berger CEH. 2016.. Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Chichester, UK:: John Wiley & Sons. , 2nd ed..
  84. Salmon WC. 1967.. The Foundations of Scientific Inference. Pittsburgh, PA:: Univ. Pittsburgh Press
  85. Schum DA. 1994.. Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. Chichester, UK:: John Wiley & Sons
  86. Sides A, Osheron D, Bonini N, Viale R. 2002.. On the reality of the conjunction fallacy. . Mem. Cogn. 30::191–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. Sjerps M, Alberink I, Bolck A, Stoel RD, Vergeer P, van Zanten JH. 2016.. Uncertainty and LR: to integrate or not to integrate, that's the question. . Law Probab. Risk 15::23–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Stiffelman B. 2019.. No longer the gold standard: probabilistic genotyping is changing the nature of DNA evidence in criminal trials. . Berkeley J. Crim. Law 2::110–46
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Tanner MA. 1996.. Tools for Statistical Inference: Methods for the Exploration of Posterior Distributions and Likelihood Functions. New York:: Springer. , 3rd ed..
  90. Taroni F, Biedermann A, Bozza S, Garbolino P, Aitken CGG. 2014.. Bayesian Networks for Probabilistic Inference and Decision Analysis in Forensic Science. Chichester, UK:: John Wiley & Sons. , 2nd ed.. A more technical review than that by Roberts & Aitken (2014) of Bayes nets in forensic science.
  91. Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A, Aitken CGG. 2016.. Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratio. . Law Probab. Risk 15::1–16
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A, Garbolino P, Aitken CGG. 2010.. Data Analysis in Forensic Science: A Bayesian Decision Perspective. Chichester, UK:: John Wiley & Sons A review of statistical decision theory with applications in forensic science.
  93. Taroni F, De March I, Garbolino P, Bozza S. 2018.. Prova genetica del DNA e risultati dissonanti: come valutare congiuntamente gli elementi scientifici di prova. . Dirit. Penale Contemp. 11::77–94
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Taroni F, Garbolino P, Bozza S. 2020.. Coherently updating degrees of belief: radical probabilism, the generalization of Bayes' theorem and its consequences on evidence evaluation. . Law Probab. Risk 19::293–316
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Taroni F, Garbolino P, Bozza S, Aitken CGG. 2021.. The Bayes factor: the coherent measure for hypothesis confirmation. . Law Probab. Risk 20::15–36
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. Taylor D, Hicks T, Champod C. 2016.. Using sensitivity analyses in Bayesian networks to highlight the impact of data paucity and direct future analyses: a contribution to the debate on measuring and reporting the precision of likelihood ratios. . Sci. Justice 56::402–10
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1983.. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. . Psychol. Rev. 90::293–315
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. van den Hout A, Alberink I. 2016.. Posterior distributions for likelihood ratios in forensic science. . Sci. Justice 56::397–401
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. van Leeuwen DA, Brümmer N. 2013.. The distribution of calibrated likelihood ratios in speaker recognition. . arXiv:1304.1199 [stat.AP]
  100. Vergeer P, Alberink I, Sjerps M, Ypma R. 2020.. Why calibrating LR-systems is best practice. A reaction to “The evaluation of evidence for microspectrophotometry data using functional data analysis,” in FSI 305. . Forensic Sci. Int. 314::110388
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Wigmore JH. 1913.. The problem of proof. . Ill. Law Rev. 8::77–103
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Zadora G, Martyna A, Ramos D, Aitken CGG. 2014.. Statistical Analysis in Forensic Science: Evidential Value of Multivariate Physicochemical Data. Chichester, UK:: John Wiley & Sons Bayesian hierarchical multivariate models with R code.
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040522-101020
Loading
The Role of the Bayes Factor in the Evaluation of Evidence
Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 11, 203 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040522-101020
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040522-101020
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040522-101020
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error