Incorrect statistical reasoning in Guyll et al. leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence

papers
Author

Michael Rosenblum, Elizabeth T. Chin, Elizabeth L. Ogburn, Akihiko Nishimura, Daniel Westreich, Abhirup Datta, Susan Vanderplas, Maria Cuellar, William C. Thompson

Published

November 5, 2024

Keywords

letter, forensics, error rates

Citation

[1] M. Rosenblum, E. T. Chin, E. L. Ogburn, et al. “Incorrect statistical reasoning in Guyll et al. leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121.45 (Nov. 05, 2024), p. e2315431121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2315431121.

@article{rosenblumIncorrectStatisticalReasoning2024,
  author = {Michael Rosenblum and Elizabeth T. Chin and Elizabeth L. Ogburn and Akihiko Nishimura and Daniel Westreich and Abhirup Datta and Susan Vanderplas and Maria Cuellar and William C. Thompson},
  title = {Incorrect statistical reasoning in {Guyll et al.} leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence},
  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume = {121},
  number = {45},
  pages = {e2315431121},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2315431121},
  publisher = {National Academy of Sciences},
  year = {2024},
  month = {nov},
}