Shifting decision thresholds can undermine the probative value and legal utility of forensic pattern-matching evidence
Open accessAbstract
Forensic pattern analysis requires examiners to compare the patterns of items such as fingerprints or tool marks to assess whether they have a common source. This article uses signal detection theory to model examiners’ reported conclusions (e.g., identification, inconclusive, or exclusion), focusing on the connection between the examiner’s decision threshold and the probative value of the forensic evidence. It uses a Bayesian network model to explore how shifts in decision thresholds may affect rates and ratios of true and false convictions in a hypothetical legal system. It demonstrates that small shifts in decision thresholds, which may arise from contextual bias, can dramatically affect the value of forensic pattern-matching evidence and its utility in the legal system.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Such contextual irrelevant biasing information can dramatically affect decisions and increase the risk of convicting an innocent person.
“The problem is that such contextual irrelevant biasing information can dramatically affect decisions and increase the risk of convicting an innocent person (Thompson, 2023).”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Thompson, 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Research on human judgment indicates that decisions can be influenced by contextual factors without the decision-maker even realizing it (16).”
BackgroundReadings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis
Howard, R. A., & Matheson, J. E. (1989) · Cited by 685 · see citing works
The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions.
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 · Cited by 634 · see citing works
Probabilistic Inference and Influence Diagrams
Shachter, R. D. (1988) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.36.4.589 · Cited by 496 · see citing works
Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications
Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 · Cited by 482 · see citing works
Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. A. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1018707108 · Cited by 350 · see citing works
Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias
Dror, I. E. (2020) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704 · Cited by 333 · see citing works
Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review
Cooper, G. S., & Meterko, V. (2019) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. A. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032800 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Meta‐analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts
Dror, I. E., & Rosenthal, R. (2008) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00762.x · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Bayesian Networks for Probabilistic Inference and Decision Analysis in Forensic Science
Taroni, F., Biedermann, A., Bozza, S., Garbolino, P., & Aitken, C. G. G. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118914762 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence?
Thompson, W. C. (2011) · Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1080/00450618.2010.541499 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Application of Signal Detection Theory to Decision-Making in Forensic Science
Phillips, V., Saks, M. J., & Peterson, J. (2001) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1520/jfs14962j · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Do juries meet our expectations?
Arkes, H. R., & Mellers, B. A. (2002) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1020929517312 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Reconceptualizing the Burden of Proof
Cheng, E. K. (2012) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Assessing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions: A Review and Outlook
Curley, L. J., Munro, J., Lages, M., MacLean, R., & Murray, J. (2019) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14220 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Inconclusives and error rates in forensic science: a signal detection theory approach
Arkes, H. R., & Koehler, J. J. (2021) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgac005 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Law
(2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.001.0001 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Reservations about likelihood ratios (and some other aspects of forensic 'Bayesianism')
Risinger, D. M. (2012) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs011 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
How clear is transparent? Reporting expert reasoning in legal cases
Sjerps, M. J., & Berger, C. E. H. (2012) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs017 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Discussion paper: Hard cases make bad law--reactions to R v T
Thompson, W. C. (2012) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs020 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citationHow to make better forensic decisions
Albright, T. D. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2206567119 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Human Factors in Forensic Science: Psychological Causes of Bias and ErrorPreprint
Kukucka, J., & Dror, I. E. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8pqyt · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Thompson, W. C., & Scurich, N. (2019) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14031 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationAre forensic scientists too risk averse?
Mannering, W. M., Vogelsang, M. D., Busey, T. A., & Mannering, F. (2021) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14700 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Surveying practicing firearm examiners
Scurich, N., Garrett, B. L., & Thompson, R. M. (2022) · Forensic Science International Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100228 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Signal detection theory fails to account for real-world consequences of inconclusive decisions
Sinha, M., & Gutierrez, R. E. (2022) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgad001 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Determining the Proper Evidentiary Basis for an Expert Opinion
Thompson, W. C. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-802460-7.00009-7 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationThe use and abuse of the elusive construct of inconclusive decisions
Dror, I. E. (2022) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgac008 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects
Dror, I. E. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15040490 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Unpacking workplace stress and forensic expert decision-making: From theory to practice
Almazrouei, M. A., Kukucka, J., Morgan, R. M., & Levy, I. (2024) · Forensic Science International Synergy · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100473 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
A review of machine learning applications in heart health
Perrone, A. M., & Khoshgoftaar, T. M. (2025) · BioMedical Engineering OnLine · doi:10.1186/s12938-025-01430-4 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Misuse of statistical method results in highly biased interpretation of forensic evidence in
Rosenblum, M., Chin, E. T., Ogburn, E. L., Nishimura, A., Westreich, D. J., Datta, A., VanderPlas, S., Cuellar, M., & Thompson, W. C. (2024) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgad010 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners
Scurich, N., Albright, T. D., Stout, P. R., Eudaley, D., Neuman, M., & Hundl, C. (2025) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.70047 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Human factors in triaging forensic items: Casework pressures and ambiguity aversion
Almazrouei, M. A., Dror, I. E., Morgan, R. M., Dan, O., Paterson, M., & Levy, I. (2025) · Science & Justice · doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2025.02.001 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Science, evidence, law, and justice
Albright, T. D., Baltimore, D., Mazza, A.-M., Mnookin, J. L., & Tatel, D. S. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2312529120 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Enhancing food collection inspection efficiency using a Bayesian network model
Cho, S. Y. (2025) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2025.111786 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
A guide to measuring expert performance in forensic pattern matching
Robson, S. G., Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., & Tangen, J. M. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02354-y · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Scurich, N., & Albright, T. D. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2528192123 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Examiner consistency in perceptions of fingerprint minutia rarity
Quigley‐McBride, A., Eldridge, H., & Gardner, B. O. (2024) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112244 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
More unjustified inferences from limited data in
Gutierrez, R. E. (2024) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgae014 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
The relevance principle from a causal perspective
Gebharter, A., & Sikorski, M. (2026) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-026-00733-0 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Cohen, A. L., Starns, J. J., Coon, M., Aggadi, N., & Busey, T. A. (2025) · Law Probability and Risk · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgaf004 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Unpacking Workplace Stress and Forensic Expert Decision-Making: From Theory to PracticePreprint
Almazrouei, M. A., Kukucka, J., Morgan, R. M., & Levy, I. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/7xhce · Cited by 1 · see citing works
A psychometric approach to decision-making thresholds across legal and societal domains
Hartsough, L. E. S., Ginther, M. R., Cheng, E. K., & Marois, R. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae592
Detecting Financial Bubbles with Tail-Weighted Entropy
Ardakani, O. M. (2025) · doi:10.3390/cmsf2025011003
Bayesian Analysis Empowering Legal Forensics Within Criminal Data Breach Prosecution Investigations
Ghazal, T. M., Alhyari, O., Saeed, A. Q., Binhammad, M. H. Y., Al‐Zoghby, A. M., Elsersy, M. S., & Shaalan, K. F. (2025) · International Conference on Cyber Resilience (ICCR) · doi:10.1109/iccr67387.2025.11291852
Budowle, B., Morris, M. D., & Weller, T. J. (2026) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2026.112816
Mattiussi, F., Azzena, A. A., Pivari, M., Magoga, F., Rezzonico, E., & Rizzo, S. (2026) · Forensic Imaging · doi:10.1016/j.fri.2026.200825
- Authors
- Thompson, W. C.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Thompson, William C.
- ORCID
- Thompson, William C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2023-10-02
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 41
- Pages
- e2301844120-e2301844120
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC10576151
- OpenAlex
- W4387245870
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 35.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- DOC | NIST | Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence (#70NANB15H176)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
- Keywords
- decision threshold, signal detection theory, evidentiary value, contextual bias, false convictions, Bayesian networks, fingerprint comparison, tool marks, forensic evidence reliability, wrongful convictions
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Dermatoglyphics, Forensic Medicine, Bias
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
