# Forensic strength of evidence statements should preferably be likelihood ratios calculated using relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.12198 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.12198/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 19 Dec 2020.

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Fusing Stylometric and Embedding Systems to Estimate Authorship Likelihood Ratios in Japanese](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.13991/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Lennard (2013) [Fingerprint identification: how far have we come? Aus J Forensic Sci. doi:10.1080/00450618.2012.752037] proposes that the numeric output of statistical models should not be presented in court (except "if necessary" / "if required"). Instead he argues in favour of an "expert opinion" which may be informed by a statistical model but which is not itself the output of a statistical model. We argue that his proposed procedure lacks the transparency, the ease of testing of validity and reliability, and the relative robustness to cognitive bias that are the strengths of a likelihood-ratio approach based on relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models, and that the latter is therefore preferable.