1932

Abstract

Civil cases outnumber criminal cases in federal courts, and statistical evidence has become more important in a wide variety of them. In contrast to science, which is concerned with general phenomena, legal cases concern one plaintiff or a class of plaintiffs and replication of the events that led to the case is not possible. This review describes the legal process, the way statistics are used in several types of cases, and the criteria courts use in evaluating the reliability of statistical testimony. Several examples of courts’ misinterpreting statistical analyses are presented. Commonly occurring issues in the statistical analysis of stratified data, the use of regression analysis, and the use of epidemiologic estimates of relative risk are described. Hopefully, this review will encourage statisticians to engage with the legal system and develop better ways of communicating the results of studies so they receive the evidentiary weight they deserve.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-031219-041238
2020-03-07
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/statistics/7/1/annurev-statistics-031219-041238.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-031219-041238&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agresti A. 2002. Categorical Data Analysis Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  2. Aitken CGGC. 2009. Some thoughts at the intersection of law and statistics. Law Probab. Risk 8:73–83
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aitken CGGC, Taroni F. 2004. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists Chichester, UK: Wiley
  4. Allen v. Seidman 881 F. 2d 375 (7th Cir. 1989.
  5. American Bankers Assocication v. National Credit Union Administration No. 18-5154 (D.C. Cir. 2019.
  6. Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds 568 U.S. 455 2013.
  7. Ananda S, Gilmartin K. 1991. Inclusion of potentially tainted variables in regression analyses for employment discrimination cases. Berkeley J. Employ. Labor Law 13:121–52
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Armstrong JD, Haney C. 2018. Key statistical issues in eye doc fraud sentencing. Law360, Mar15
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bacon CJ. 2003. The case of Sally Clark. J. R. Soc. Med. 96:105
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Balding DJ. 2005. Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  11. Barnes v. GenCorp, Inc. 896 F. 2d 1457 (6th Cir. 1990.
  12. Barrett BE. 2007. Detecting bias in jury selection. Am. Stat. 61:296–301
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 1986.
  14. Bavli HJ, Felter JK. 2018. The admissibility of sampling evidence to prove individual damages in class actions. Boston Coll. Law Rev. 59:655–723
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bazemore v. Friday 106 S. Ct. 3000 1986.
  16. Bone RG. 2017. Tyson Foods and the future of statistical adjudication. N. C. Law Rev. 95:607–71
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Boutrous TJ Jr., Hamburger BJ. 2014. Three myths about Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. George Wash. Law Rev. Arguendo 82:45–58
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bracco Diagnostics v. Amersham Health 627 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. N.J. 2009.
  19. Bright JS, Kadane JB, Nagin DS 1988. Statistical sampling in tax audits. Law Soc. Inq. 13:305–33
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bross ID. 1960. Statistical criticism. Cancer 13:394–400
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bryan v. Koch 492 F. Supp. 212 (S.D. N.Y), affirmed 627 F. 2d 612, 2d Cir 1980.
  22. Carruth RS, Goldstein BD. 2001. Relative risk greater than two in proof of causation in toxic tort litigation. Jurimetr. J. 41:195–209
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 97 S. Ct. 1272 1977.
  24. Chen-Oster et al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10–06950 (S.D.N.Y. 2018.
  25. Coates v. Johnson and Johnson, 756 F. 2d 524 (7th Cir. 1985.
  26. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 2013.
  27. Connecticut v. Teal, 102 S. Ct. 2525 1982.
  28. Cox LA Jr 1984. Probability of causation and the attributable proportion of risk. Risk Anal 4:221–30
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cremieux P, Simmon I, Snyder EA 2010. Proof of common impact in antitrust litigations: the value of regression analysis. George Mason Law Rev 17:939–67
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dafler v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 259 N.J. Super. 17 1992.
  31. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 1993.
  32. Davis v. City of Dallas. 485 F. Supp. 45 (D.C. Tex. 1979), affirmed 777 F. 2d 205 (5th Cir. 1985.
  33. Dawid AP, Musio Fienberg SE 2016. From statistical evidence to evidence of causality. Bayesian Anal 11:725–53
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Diamond SS. 2011. Reference guide on survey research. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence SG Breyer, MA Berger, D Goodstein, EJ Imwinkelried, PC Giannelli et al.359–423 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Diamond SS, Franklyn DJ. 2014. Trademark surveys: an undulating path. Texas Law Rev 92:2029–73
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Dmitrienko A, Tamhane AC, Bretz F, eds. 2009. Multiple Testing Problems in Pharmaceutical Statistics Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC
  37. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 119 FEP Cases 730 (N.D. Cal. 2013.
  38. EEOC v. Shelby County, 707 F. Supp. 969 (W.D. Tenn. 1988.
  39. Fairley WB, Huber WA. 2018. Statistical criticism in prima facie proof of disparate impact discrimination. Obs. Stud. 4:111–16
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fienberg SE, Straf ML. 1982. Statistical assessments as evidence. J. R. Stat. Soc. A. 145:410–21
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Finkelstein MO, Levin B. 1994. Proportional hazards models for age discrimination cases. Jurimetrics J 34:153–64
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Finkelstein MO, Levin B. 2002. Statistics for Lawyers New York: Springer. , 2nd ed..
  43. Flores DM, Richardson JT, Merlino ML 2010. Examining the effects of the Daubert trilogy on expert evidence and practices in federal civil court: an empirical analysis. S. Ill. Univ. Law J. 34:533–64
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fogarty CB, Small DS. 2016. Sensitivity analysis for multiple comparisons in matched observational studies through quadratically constrained linear programming. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 111:1820–30
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ford GT. 2005. The impact of the Daubert decision on survey research used in litigation. J. Public Policy Mark. 24:234–52
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Fradella HF, O'Neill L, Fogarty A 2004. The impact of Daubert on forensic science. Pepperdine Law Rev 31:323–61
    [Google Scholar]
  47. F.R.D. 1966. Swain v. Alabama: a constitutional blueprint for the perpetuation of the all-white jury. Va. Law Rev. 52:61157–75
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Fung WK, Hu YQ. 2008. Statistical DNA Forensics Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  49. Gastwirth JL. 1988. Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy. Orlando, FL: Academic
  50. Gastwirth JL. 1997. Statistical evidence in discrimination cases. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 160:289–303
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Gastwirth JL. 2003. Issues arising in using samples as evidence in trademark cases. J. Econometrics 113:69–82
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Gastwirth JL. 2012. Statistical considerations support the Supreme Court's decision in Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano. . Jurimetrics J 52:155–75
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gastwirth JL. 2016. Statistical testing of peremptory challenge data for possible discrimination: application to Foster v. Chatman. Vanderbilt Law Rev. . En Banc 69:51–95
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Gastwirth JL. 2018. The potential usefulness of Bross's principles of statistical criticism for the evaluation of statistical evidence in law and public policy. Obs. Stud. 4:117–31
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Gastwirth JL, Bura E, Miao W 2011. Some important statistical issues courts should consider in their assessment of statistical analyses submitted in class certification motions: implications for Dukes v. Wal-Mart. Law Probab. . Risk 10:225–63
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Gastwirth JL, Greenhouse SW. 1987. Estimating a common relative risk: application in equal employment. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82:38–45
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gastwirth JL, Greenhouse SW. 1995. Biostatistical concepts and methods in the legal setting. Stat. Med. 14:1641–53
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gastwirth JL, Miao W, Pan Q 2017. Statistical issues in Kerner v. Denver: a class action disparate impact case. Law Probab. Risk 16:35–53
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Gastwirth JL, Miao M, Zheng G 2003. Statistical issues arising in disparate impact cases and the use of the expectancy curve in assessing the validity of pre-employment tests. Int. Stat. Rev. 71:565–80
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gastwirth JL, Pan Q. 2011. Statistical measures and methods for assessing the representativeness of juries: a reanalysis of the data in Berghuis. v. Smith. Law Probab. . Risk 10:17–57
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Gastwirth JL, Xu W. 2014. Statistical tools for evaluating the adequacy of the size of a sample on which statistical evidence is based. Law Probab. Risk 13:277–306
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Gastwirth JL, Xu W, Pan Q 2015. Statistical measures for evaluating protected group under-representation: analysis of the conflicting inferences drawn from the same data in People v. Bryant and Ambrose v. Booker. Law Probab. . Risk 14:279–304
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Gau JM. 2015. A jury of whose peers? The impact of selection procedures on racial composition and the prevalence of majority-white juries. J. Crime Justice 39:75–87
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Gel YR, Miao W, Gastwirth JL 2009. The effect of dependence between observations on the proper interpretation of statistical evidence. Law Probab. Risk 8:25–38
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Gelbach JB. 2017. The triangle of law and the role of evidence in class action litigation. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 165:1807–45
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Goldberg R. 2014. Epidemiological uncertainty, causation and drug product liability. McGill Law J 59:777–818
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Gray MW. 1993. Can statistics tell us what we do not want to hear? The case of complex salary structures. Stat. Sci. 8:144–58
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Greenhouse JB. 2009. Commentary: Cornfield, epidemiology and causality. Int. J. Epidemiol. 38:1199–201
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Greenhouse SW. 1982. Jerome Cornfield's contributions to epidemiology. Biometrics 38:Suppl.33–46
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Greenland S, Robins JM. 2000. Epidemiology, justice, and the probability of causation. Jurimetrics J 40:321–40
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Griggs v. Duke Power Co, 401 U.S. 424, 91 S. Ct. 849 1971.
  72. Harv. Law Rev. 2016. Civil Procedure—Representative evidence—Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. Harv. . Law Rev 130:407 https://harvardlawreview.org/2016/11/tyson-foods-inc-v-bouaphakeo/
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Hastings JS, Williams MA. 2016. What is a “but-for world”. Antitrust 31:102–8
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Hempstead v. Pfizer, Inc., 150 F. Supp. 644 (D.S.C. 2015.
  75. Hill AB. 1965. The environment and disease: association or causation. Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58:295–300
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Ho DE. 2018. Judging statistical criticism. Obs. Stud. 4:142–56
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Hochberg Y, Tamhane AC. 1981. Multiple Comparison Procedures Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  78. Holmes OW. 1897. The path of the law. Harv. Law Rev. 10:457
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Hsu J. 1996. Multiple Comparisons: Theory and Methods New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC
  80. Hutton JL. 2018. Expert evidence: civil law, epidemiology and data quality. Law Probab. Risk 17:101–10
    [Google Scholar]
  81. In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation 292 F. Supp. 3d 14 2017.
  82. In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 02741 (N.D. Ca. 2016.
  83. In re Sprint Nextel Corporation 593 F. 3d 669 (7th Cir. 2010.
  84. In re Zoloft 858 F. 3d 787 (3rd Cir. 2017.
  85. Jacobs D. 2014. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend: common questions versus individual answers—which will predominate. Loyola L.A. Law. Rev. 47:505–22
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Johnson JH, Leonard GK. 2011. Rigorous analysis of class actions comes of age. Antitrust Law J 77:569–86
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Kadane JB. 2018. Batson and reverse-Batson motions in North Carolina: State v. Hurd and State v. Tucker. Law Probab. Risk 17:263–73
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC 849 F. 3d 61 (3d Cir. 2017.
  89. Kaye DH, Bernstein DE, Mnookin JL 2018. The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence—Expert Evidence New York: Aspen
  90. Kaye DH, Freedman D. 2010. Reference guide on statistics. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence SG Breyer, MA Berger, D Goodstein, EJ Imwinkelried, PC Giannelli et al.211–302 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Kennedy K, Bishop J. 2014. Random sampling issues in a federal court case, a case study. CS-BIGS 5:111–114
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Kerner v. Denver, 2015 WL 5698663 (D. Colo. 2015.
  93. Kobyasheva A. 2014. Using epidemiological evidence in tort law: a practical guide. J. Prof. Neglig. 30:124–43
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Lamm KE. 2015. Work in progress: civil rights class actions after Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Harv. Civ. Rights Civ. Lib. Law Rev. 50:153–82
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Lillestol J. 2019. Sample statistics as convincing evidence: a tax fraud case. Law Probab. Risk 18:149–76
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Lowe v. Commack Union Free School District 886 F. 2d 1364 (2d Cir. 1989.
  97. Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano 563 U.S. 27, 131 S. Ct. 1309 2011.
  98. McDarby v. Merck & Co., 949 A. 2d, 223, 401 (N.J. Super. 10 2008.
  99. McIvor C. 2013. Debunking some judicial myths about epidemiology and its relevance to UK tort law. Med. Law Rev. 21:4553–87
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Mengersen K, Moynihan SA, Tweedie RL 2007. Causality and association: the statistical and legal approaches. Stat. Sci. 22:227–54
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Miao W, Gastwirth JL. 2016. Statistical issues arising in class action cases: a reanalysis of the statistical evidence in Dukes v. Wal-Mart II. Law Probab. Risk 15:155–74
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Miao W, Gastwirth JL. 2018. Case comment: estimating the economic value of the loss of a chance: a re-examination of Chaplin v. Hicks. Law Probab. Risk 17:279–93
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Miller C. 2009. Liability for negligently increased risk: the repercussions of Barker v. Corus UK (Plc). Law Probab. Risk 8:39–54
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Miller RG Jr 1986. Beyond ANOVA: Basics of Applied Statistics New York: Wiley
  105. Millsap RE, Meredith W. 1994. Statistical evidence in salary discrimination studies. Multivar. Behav. Res. 29:339–64
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Murray Energy v. EPA No. 15-1385 (D.C. Cir. 2019.
  107. Norris v. Alabama 294 U.S. 587 1935.
  108. O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers 517 U.S. 308 1996.
  109. Orellana JP. 2010. Two-thirds of an evidentiary requirement: Are courts too strict in construing the two-thirds citizenship requirement of the CAFA home-state exception. Seventh Cir. Rev. 6:82–113
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Owen AB. 2009. Karl Pearson's meta-analysis revisited. Ann. Stat. 37:3867–92
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Paetzold RL, Willborn SL. 2015. The Statistics of Discrimination: Using Statistical Evidence in Discrimination Cases Eagan, MN: West Group
  112. Paige v. State of California 291 F. 3d 1141, 88 FEP Cases 1666 (9th Cir. 2002.
  113. Palmer v. Shultz 815 F. 2d 84 (D.C. Cir 1987.
  114. Pan Q, Gastwirth JL. 2013. The appropriateness of survival analysis for determining lost pay in discrimination cases when the number of plaintiffs exceeds the number of job openings: application of the “lost chance” doctrine to Alexander v. Milwaukee. Law Probab. Risk 12:13–36
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Parkinson A. 2014. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend and chaos on the ground. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 81:1213–59
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Plevan KA. 2016. Recent trends in the use of surveys in advertising and consumer deception disputes. Chicago-Kent J. Intellect. Prop. 15:49–92
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Quintana DS, Williams DR. 2018. Bayesian alternatives for common null hypothesis significance tests in psychiatry: a non-technical guide using JASP. BMC Psychiatr 18:178–86
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Reagan RT. 2002. The Federal Judicial Center statistical examples software prototype: age discrimination example. Jurimetrics J 42:281–95
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Romei A, Ruggieri SA. 2014. A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 29:582–638
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Rose MR, Casarez RS, Gutierrez CM 2018. Jury pool underrepresentation in the modern era: evidence from federal courts. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 15:378–405
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Rosenbaum PR. 2002. Observational Studies New York: Springer. , 2nd ed..
  122. Rosenbaum PR, Krieger AM. 1990. Sensitivity analysis for two-sample permutation tests in observational studies. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 85:493–98
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Rosenblum M. 2000. On the evolution of analytic proof, statistics and the use of experts in EEO litigation. Statistical Science in the Courtroom J Gastwirth 161–94 New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Rubinfeld DL. 2011. Reference guide on multiple regression. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence SG Breyer, MA Berger, D Goodstein, EJ Imwinkelried, PC Giannelli et al.303–58 Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. , 3rd. ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Rubinfeld DL, Steiner PO. 1983. Quantitative methods in antitrust litigation. Law Contemp. Probl. 46:69–144
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Scott EL. 1977. Higher Education Salary Evaluation Kit Washington, DC: Am. Assoc. Univ. Profr.
  127. Selmi M, Tsakos S. 2015. Employment discrimination class actions after Wal-Mart v. Dukes. . Akron Law Rev 48:44
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Sham PC, Purcell S. 2014. Statistical power and significance testing in large-scale genetic studies. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15:335–46
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Shea v. Kerry 796 F. 3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 2015.
  130. Sheehan v. Daily Racing Form, Inc., 104 F. 3d 940 (7th Cir. 1997.
  131. Sinclair MD, Pan Q. 2009. Using the Peters–Belson method in equal employment opportunity personnel evaluations. Law Probab. Risk 8:95–117
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Smith v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 924 F. 2d 1059 1991. WL 11271 (6th Cir. 1991)
  133. Sobczak F, Burdorf A, Zeegers M 2014. Law and epidemiology: misinterpretation of epidemiologic information in claims for asbestos-related diseases. OA Epidemiol 18:1–6
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Steckman LA, Conner RE, Rosenthal SJ 2014. Market impact, loss causation and multiple regression modeling—the importance of modular theories of damage causation in antitrust Class certification motion practice after Comcast v. Behrend. Touro Law Rev 30:127–51
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Swain v. Alabama 380 U.S. 202 1965.
  136. Thomas PT. 2017. Trial by formula: the use of statistical sampling and extrapolation in establishing liability under the False Claims Act. Wash. Lee Law Rev. Online 74:103–45
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Thompson WC, Shumann EL. 1987. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law Hum. Behav. 2:167–87
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Trask AJ. 2016. Litigation matters: the curious case of Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. . Cato Supreme Court Rev 15:279–312
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo 136 S. Ct. 1036 2016.
  140. US Dep. Justice 2010. Horizontal Merger Guidelines Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice
  141. U.S. v. Life Care Centers 114 F. Supp. 3d 549 (E.D. Tenn 2014.
  142. USA v. Birkart Globistics Case: 02-cv-1168 (AJT/TRJ) (E.D. Va 2014.
  143. van Belle G. 2008. Statistical Rules of Thumb Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. , 2nd ed..
  144. Wagner WE. 2000. Judicial review of statistical analyses in environmental rulemakings. Statistical Science in the Courtroom JL Gastwirth 281–301 New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Waisome v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 948 F. 2d 1370, 1376 (2d Cir 1991.
  146. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes 131 S. Ct. 2541 2011.
  147. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Hechler, 787 F.2d 147 ( , 3rd Cir. 1986.
  148. Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 120 S. Ct. 1011 2000.
  149. Vega M. 2018. Should statistical sampling be used to prove liability under false claims act in healthcare fraud?. S. Calif. Law Rev. 91:551–91
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Vivendi Canada Inc. v. Dell'Anniello, 1.R.C.S.3–33 2014.
  151. Vuyanich v. Republic National Bank, 505 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1980.
  152. Wasserstein RW, Lazar NA. 2016. The ASA's statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 70:129–33
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Xu W, Pan Q, Gastwirth JL 2014. Adaptive procedures for nested processes: application to equal employment. Stat. Interface 7:153–65
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Yablon D. 2016. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo: a murky future for representative evidence in rule 23(B) (3) class actions and FLSA collective actions. Berkeley J. Employ. Labor Law 38:327–36
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 1886.
  156. Zeisel H, Kaye DH 1997. Prove It with Figures: Empirical Methods in Litigation New York Springer
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-031219-041238
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-031219-041238
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
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