Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAccuracy, Repeatability, and Reproducibility of Firearm Comparisons Part 1: Accuracy
43
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Gene Peters
Publication date
2021
fields
Mathematical Statistics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Researchers at the Ames Laboratory-USDOE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted a study to assess the performance of forensic examiners in firearm investigations. The study involved three different types of firearms and 173 volunteers who compared both bullets and cartridge cases. The total number of comparisons reported is 20,130, allocated to assess accuracy (8,640), repeatability (5,700), and reproducibility (5,790) of the evaluations made by participating examiners. The overall false positive error rate was estimated as 0.656% and 0.933% for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively, while the rate of false negatives was estimated as 2.87% and 1.87% for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively. Because chi-square tests of independence strongly suggest that error probabilities are not the same for each examiner, these are maximum likelihood estimates based on the beta-binomial probability model and do not depend on an assumption of equal examiner-specific error rates. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals are (0.305%,1.42%) and (0.548%,1.57%) for false positives for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively, and (1.89%,4.26%) and (1.16%,2.99%) for false negatives for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively. These results are based on data representing all controlled conditions considered, including different firearm manufacturers, sequence of manufacture, and firing separation between unknown and known comparison specimens. The results are consistent with those of prior studies, despite its more robust design and challenging specimens.
rate research
Read More
Under the multispecies coalescent model of molecular evolution, gene trees have independent evolutionary histories within a shared species tree. In comparison, supermatrix concatenation methods assume that gene trees share a single common genealogical history, thereby equating gene coalescence with species divergence. The multispecies coalescent is supported by previous studies which found that its predicted distributions fit empirical data, and that concatenation is not a consistent estimator of the species tree. *BEAST, a fully Bayesian implementation of the multispecies coalescent, is popular but computationally intensive, so the increasing size of phylogenetic data sets is both a computational challenge and an opportunity for better systematics. Using simulation studies, we characterize the scaling behaviour of *BEAST, and enable quantitative prediction of the impact increasing the number of loci has on both computational performance and statistical accuracy. Follow up simulations over a wide range of parameters show that the statistical performance of *BEAST relative to concatenation improves both as branch length is reduced and as the number of loci is increased. Finally, using simulations based on estimated parameters from two phylogenomic data sets, we compare the performance of a range of species tree and concatenation methods to show that using *BEAST with tens of loci can be preferable to using concatenation with thousands of loci. Our results provide insight into the practicalities of Bayesian species tree estimation, the number of loci required to obtain a given level of accuracy and the situations in which supermatrix or summary methods will be outperformed by the fully Bayesian multispecies coalescent.
The performance (accuracy and robustness) of several clustering algorithms is studied for linearly dependent random variables in the presence of noise. It turns out that the error percentage quickly increases when the number of observations is less than the number of variables. This situation is common situation in experiments with DNA microarrays. Moreover, an {it a posteriori} criterion to choose between two discordant clustering algorithm is presented.
In medical research, it is common to collect information of multiple continuous biomarkers to improve the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Combining the measurements of these biomarkers into one single score is a popular practice to integrate the collected information, where the accuracy of the resultant diagnostic test is usually improved. To measure the accuracy of a diagnostic test, the Youden index has been widely used in literature. Various parametric and nonparametric methods have been proposed to linearly combine biomarkers so that the corresponding Youden index can be optimized. Yet there seems to be little justification of enforcing such a linear combination. This paper proposes a flexible approach that allows both linear and nonlinear combinations of biomarkers. The proposed approach formulates the problem in a large margin classification framework, where the combination function is embedded in a flexible reproducing kernel Hilbert space. Advantages of the proposed approach are demonstrated in a variety of simulated experiments as well as a real application to a liver disorder study.
Developing spatio-temporal crime prediction models, and to a lesser extent, developing measures of accuracy and operational efficiency for them, has been an active area of research for almost two decades. Despite calls for rigorous and independent evaluations of model performance, such studies have been few and far between. In this paper, we argue that studies should focus not on finding the one predictive model or the one measure that is the most appropriate at all times, but instead on careful consideration of several factors that affect the choice of the model and the choice of the measure, to find the best measure and the best model for the problem at hand. We argue that because each problem is unique, it is important to develop measures that empower the practitioner with the ability to input the choices and preferences that are most appropriate for the problem at hand. We develop a new measure called the penalized predictive accuracy index (PPAI) which imparts such flexibility. We also propose the use of the expected utility function to combine multiple measures in a way that is appropriate for a given problem in order to assess the models against multiple criteria. We further propose the use of the average logarithmic score (ALS) measure that is appropriate for many crime models and measures accuracy differently than existing measures. These measures can be used alongside existing measures to provide a more comprehensive means of assessing the accuracy and potential utility of spatio-temporal crime prediction models.
How do we design and deploy crowdsourced prediction platforms for real-world applications where risk is an important dimension of prediction performance? To answer this question, we conducted a large online Wisdom of the Crowd study where participants predicted the prices of real financial assets (e.g. S&P 500). We observe a Pareto frontier between accuracy of prediction and risk, and find that this trade-off is mediated by social learning i.e. as social learning is increasingly leveraged, it leads to lower accuracy but also lower risk. We also observe that social learning leads to superior accuracy during one of our rounds that occurred during the high market uncertainty of the Brexit vote. Our results have implications for the design of crowdsourced prediction platforms: for example, they suggest that the performance of the crowd should be more comprehensively characterized by using both accuracy and risk (as is standard in financial and statistical forecasting), in contrast to prior work where risk of prediction has been overlooked.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
