CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

From Biometric Scores to Forensic Likelihood Ratios

Ramos, Daniel, Krish, Ram P., Fierrez, Julian, Meuwly, Didier·2017·Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50673-9_14
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-50673-9_14

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309(5736):892–895 · DOI
  2. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA (1998) A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci Justice 38:151–156 · DOI
  3. Aitken CGG, Taroni F (2004) Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Wiley, Chichester · DOI
  4. Berger CA, Champod JS, Curran C, Dawid J, Kloosterman AP (2011) Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Sci Justice 51:1–2. Several signatories · DOI
  5. Ramos D (2007) Forensic evaluation of the evidence using automatic speaker recognition systems. PhD thesis, Depto. de Ingenieria Informatica, Escuela Politecnica Superior, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. http://atvs.ii.uam.es
  6. Brümmer N, du Preez J (2006) Application independent evaluation of speaker detection. Comput Speech Lang 20(2–3):230–275 · DOI
  7. van Leeuwen D, Brümmer N (2007) An introduction to application-independent evaluation of speaker recognition systems. In: Müller C (ed) Speaker classification. Lecture notes in computer science/Artificial intelligence, vol 4343. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, New York · DOI · Paper page
  8. Ramos D, Gonzalez-Rodriguez J (2013) Reliable support: measuring calibration of likelihood ratios. Forensic Sci Int 230:156–169 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Zadora G, Ramos D (2010) Evaluation of glass samples for forensic purposes–an application of likelihood ratio model and information-theoretical approach. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 102:62–63 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Li P, Fu Y, Mohammed U, Elder J, Prince SJD (2010) Probabilistic models for inference about identity. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell (PAMI) 34(1):144–157
  11. Dehak N, Kenny P, Dehak R, Dumouchel P, Ouellet P (2010) Front-end factor analysis for speaker verification. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 19(4):788–798 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Villalba J, Brümmer N (2011) Towards fully Bayesian speaker recognition: integrating out the between-speaker covariance. Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the international speech communication association, Interspeech 2011. Florence, Italy, pp 505–508
  13. Zadora G, Martyna A, Ramos D, Aitken C (2014) Statistical analysis in forensic science: evidential values of multivariate physicochemical data. Wiley · DOI
  14. Rodriguez CM, de Jongh A, Meuwly D (2013) Introducing a semiautomatic method to simulate large numbers of forensic fingermarks for research on fingerprint identification. J Forensic Sci 57(2):334–342 · DOI
  15. van Leeuwen DA, Brümmer N (2013) The distribution of calibrated likelihood-ratios in speaker recognition. arXiv preprint · DOI
  16. Ramos D, Gonzalez-Rodriguez J, Zadora G, Aitken C (2013) Information-theoretical assessment of the performance of likelihood ratio models. J Forensic Sci 58:1503–1518 · DOI
  17. Haraksim R, Ramos D, Meuwly D, Berger CE (2015) Measuring coherence of computer-assisted likelihood ratio methods. Forensic Sci Int 249:123–132 · DOI
  18. Meuwly D, Ramos D, Haraksim R (in press) A guideline for the validation of likelihood ratio methods used for forensic evidence evaluation. Forensic Sci Int. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.048 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Taroni F, Aitken C, Garbolino P, Biedermann A (2006) Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science. Wiley · DOI
  20. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA (1998) A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice 38(4):231–239 · DOI
  21. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA (2000) More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Sci Justice 401(1):3–10 · DOI
  22. Champod C, Evett IW, Jackson G (2004) Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions. Sci Justice 44(3):153–164 · DOI
  23. Evett IW (1998) Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework. Sci Justice 38(3):198–202 · DOI
  24. Neumann C, Evett IW, Skerrett JE, Mateos-Garcia I (2011) Quantitative assessment of evidential weight for a fingerprint comparison I: generalisation to the comparison of a mark with set of ten prints from a suspect. Forensic Sci Int 207:101–105 · DOI
  25. Neumann C, Evett I, Skerret JE (2012) Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm. J R Stat Soc Ser A: Stat Soc 175(2):371–415 · DOI
  26. Taroni F, Aitken CGG, Garbolino P (2001) De Finetti’s subjectivism, the assessment of probabilities and the evaluation of evidence: a commentary for forensic scientists. Sci Justice 41(3):145–150 · DOI
  27. Doddington G, Liggett W, Martin A, Przybocki M, Reynolds DA (1998) Sheeps, goats, lambs and wolves: a statistical analysis of speaker performance in the NIST 1998 speaker recognition evaluation. In: Proceedings of ICSLP · DOI
  28. Hepler AB, Saunders CP, Davis LJ, Buscaglia J (2011) Score-based likelihood ratios for handwriting evidence. Foresic Sci Int 219(1–3):129–140
  29. Meuwly D (2001) Reconaissance de Locuteurs en Sciences Forensiques: L’apport d’une Approache Automatique. PhD thesis, IPSC-Universite de Lausanne
  30. Navratil J, Ramaswamy G (2003) The awe and mystery of T-Norm. In: Proceedings of ESCA European conference on speech, communication and technology, EuroSpeech, pp 2009–2012 · DOI
  31. Gonzalez-Rodriguez J, Fierrez-Aguilar J, Ramos-Castro D, Ortega-Garcia J (2005) Bayesian analysis of fingerprint, face and signature evidences with automatic biometric systems. Forensic Sci Int 155(2–3):126–140 · DOI
  32. Pigeon S, Druyts P, Verlinde P (2000) Applying logistic regression to the fusion of the NIST’99 1-speaker submissions. Digit Signal Process 10(1):237–248 · DOI
  33. Brümmer N, Burget L, Cernocky J, Glembek O, Grezl F, Karafiat M, van Leeuwen DA, Matejka P, Scwartz P, Strasheim A (2007) Fusion of heterogeneous speaker recognition systems in the STBU submission for the NIST speaker recognition evaluation 2006. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Signal Process 15(7):2072–2084 · DOI
  34. Gonzalez-Rodriguez J, Rose P, Ramos D, Toledano DT, Ortega-Garcia J (2007) Emulating DNA: rigorous quantification of evidential weight in transparent and testable forensic speaker recognition. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Signal Process 15(7):2072–2084 · DOI
  35. Vergeer P, Bolck A, Peschier LJ, Berger CE, Hendriks JN (2014) Likelihood ratio methods for forensic comparison of evaporated gasoline residues. Sci Justice 56(6):401–411 · DOI
  36. Morrison GS (2009) Likelihood-ratio-based forensic speaker comparison using parametric representations of vowel formant trajectories. J Acoust Soc Am 125:2387–2397 · DOI
  37. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2001) Pattern classification. Wiley
  38. Cappelli R, Ferrara M, Maltoni D (2010) Minutia cylinder-code: a new representation and matching technique for fingerprint recognition. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32:2128–2141 · DOI
  39. Cappelli R, Ferrara M, Maltoni D (2010) Fingerprint indexing based on minutia cylinder code. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 33:1051–1057 · DOI
  40. Ferrara M, Maltoni D, Cappelli R (2012) Noninvertible minutia cylinder-code representation. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7:1727–1737 · DOI
  41. Egli N (2009) Interpretation of partial fingermarks using an automated fingerprint identification system. PhD thesis, Institute de Police Scientifique, Ecole de Sciences Criminelles
  42. Auckenthaler R, Carey M, Lloyd-Tomas H (2000) Score normalization for text-independent speaker verification systems. Digit Signal Process 10:42–54 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ramos, D., Krish, R. P., Fierrez, J., & Meuwly, D.
Venue
Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2017
Pages
305-327
ISSN
  • 2191-6586
  • 2191-6594
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-50673-9_14
Cited by
18
References
0
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review