title: An argument against presenting interval quantifications as a surrogate for the value of evidence.
abstract: In the various forensic science disciplines, recent analytical developments paired with modern statistical computational tools have led to the proliferation of adhoc techniques for quantifying the probative value of forensic evidence. Many legal and scientific scholars agree that the value of evidence should be reported as a likelihood ratio or a Bayes Factor. Quantifying the probative value of forensic evidence is subjected to many sources of variability and uncertainty. There is currently a debate on how to characterize the reliability of the value of evidence. Some authors have proposed associating a confidence/credible interval with the value of evidence assigned to a collection of forensic evidence. In this paper, we will discuss the reasons for our opinion that interval quantifications for the value of evidence should not be used directly in the Bayesian decision-making process to determine the support of the evidence for one of the two competing hypotheses.
authors.affiliation: South Dakota State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Brookings, SD, United States. Electronic address: danica.ommen@sdstate.edu.
authors.forename: Danica M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Ommen
authors.affiliation: South Dakota State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Brookings, SD, United States.
authors.forename: Christopher P
authors.initials: CP
authors.lastname: Saunders
authors.affiliation: South Dakota State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Brookings, SD, United States.
authors.forename: Cedric
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Neumann
keywords: Bayes Factor; Evidence interpretation; Interval; Likelihood ratio