U-statistics for estimating performance metrics in forensic handwriting analysis

References

• Huber RA, Headrick AM. Handwriting identification: facts and fundamentals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Bulacu M, Schomaker L. Text-independent writer identification and verification using textural and allographic features. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2007;29:701–717. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2007.1009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michael Risinger D, Saks MJ. Science and nonscience in the courts: Daubert meets handwriting identification expertise. Iowa Law Rev. 1996;82(1):21–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. 2nd ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science. Search for the term ‘random match probability’. August 2018. Availble from http://lexicon.forensicosac.org/Term/Home/index
   Google Scholar
• Saunders CP, Davis LJ, Lamas AC, et al. Construction and evaluation of classifiers for forensic document analysis. Ann Appl Statist. 2011;5(1):381–399. doi: 10.1214/10-AOAS379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selvin S, Grunbaum BW, Myhre BA. The probability of non-discrimination or likelihood of guilt of an accused: criminal identification. J Forensic Sci Soc. Jan 1983;23(1):27–33. doi: 10.1016/S0015-7368(83)71539-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Found B, Bird C. The modular forensic handwriting method – 2016 version. J Forensic Doc Examination. 2016;26:7–83. doi: 10.31974/jfde26-7-83
   Google Scholar
• Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 2008;61(1):199–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balding DJ. Weight-of-evidence for forensic DNA profiles. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Bolle RM, Connnell JH, Pankanti S, et al. Guide to biometrics. New York: Springer; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders CP, Davis LJ, Buscaglia J. Using automated comparisons to quantify handwriting individuality. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56(3):683–689. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01713.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serfling RJ. Approximation theorems of mathematical statistics. New York: Wiley; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Wayman JL. Confidence interval and test size estimation for biometric data. In: Wayman JL, editor. National biometric center collected works 1997–2000. San Jose, CA: National Biometric Test Center; 2000. p. 89–99.
   Google Scholar
• Davis L, Saunders C, Hepler A, et al. Using subsampling to estimate the strength of handwriting evidence via score-based likelihood ratios. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;216(1):146–157. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.09.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborn AS. Questioned documents. 3rd ed. Albany, NY: Boyd Printing Company; 1929.
   Google Scholar
• Hepler A, Saunders C, Davis L, et al. Score-based likelihood ratios for handwriting evidence. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;219(1):129–140. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.12.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Ross AA, Nandakumar K, Jain AK. Handbook of multibiometrics. New York: Springer; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Schuckers ME. Computational methods in biometric authentication. London: Springer; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community. Strengthening forensic science in the united states: a path forward.
   Google Scholar
• Stoney DA. Evaluation of associative evidence: choosing the relevant question. J Forensic Sci Soc. 1984;24(5):473–482. doi: 10.1016/S0015-7368(84)72326-7
   Google Scholar
• The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Report to the President Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods.
   Google Scholar
• Lund SP, Iyer H. Likelihood ratio as weight of forensic evidence: a closer look. J Res Natl Inst Standards Technol. 2017;122(27):1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Zadora G, Martyna A, Ramos D. Statistical analysis in forensic science: evidential value of multivariate physicochemical data. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Ommen DM, Saunders CP. Building a unified statistical framework for the forensic identification of source problems. Law Probab Risk. May 2018;17(2):179–197. doi: 10.1093/lpr/mgy008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron B, Hastie T. Computer age statistical inference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Gantz D, Saunders C. Quantifying the effects of database size and sample quality on measures of individualization validity and accuracy in forensics, 2014. National Institute of Justice Final Report No. 2009-DN-BX-K234. 2015.
   Google Scholar