A strawman with machine learning for a brain A response to Biedermann (2022) the strange persistence of (source) “identification” claims in forensic literature
| Authors |
|
|---|---|
| Publication date | 2022 |
| Journal | Forensic Science International: Synergy |
| Article number | 100230 |
| Volume | Issue number | 4 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Organisations |
|
| 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 | |
