More Like this

1. Visualizing and Reasoning about Presentable Digital Forensic Evidence with Knowledge Graphs

   Weifeng Xu and Dianxiang Xu (August 2022, the 19th IEEE Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST’22))

   Making digital evidence presentable is hard due to its intangible and complex nature and the variety of targeted audiences. In this paper, we present Digital Forensic Knowledge Graph (DFKG) for visualizing and reasoning about digital forensic evidence. We first describe the criteria of presentable evidence to ensure the authenticity, integrity, validity, credibility, and relevance of evidence. Then we specify DFKG to capture presentable forensic evidence from three perspectives: (1) the background of a criminal case, (2) the reconstructed timeline, and (3) the verifiable digital evidence related to the criminal activity timeline. We also present a case study to illustrate the DFKG-based approach. 

   more » « less
2. High-dimensional empirical likelihood inference

   https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asaa051  

   Chang, Jinyuan; Chen, Song Xi; Tang, Cheng Yong; Wu, Tong Tong (October 2020, Biometrika)

   null (Ed.)

   Summary High-dimensional statistical inference with general estimating equations is challenging and remains little explored. We study two problems in the area: confidence set estimation for multiple components of the model parameters, and model specifications tests. First, we propose to construct a new set of estimating equations such that the impact from estimating the high-dimensional nuisance parameters becomes asymptotically negligible. The new construction enables us to estimate a valid confidence region by empirical likelihood ratio. Second, we propose a test statistic as the maximum of the marginal empirical likelihood ratios to quantify data evidence against the model specification. Our theory establishes the validity of the proposed empirical likelihood approaches, accommodating over-identification and exponentially growing data dimensionality. Numerical studies demonstrate promising performance and potential practical benefits of the new methods. 

   more » « less
3. Constructing Prediction Intervals Using the Likelihood Ratio Statistic

   https://doi.org/10.1287/ijds.2021.0007  

   Tian, Qinglong; Nordman, Daniel J.; Meeker, William Q. (April 2022, INFORMS Journal on Data Science)

   Statistical prediction plays an important role in many decision processes, such as university budgeting (depending on the number of students who will enroll), capital budgeting (depending on the remaining lifetime of a fleet of systems), the needed amount of cash reserves for warranty expenses (depending on the number of warranty returns), and whether a product recall is needed (depending on the number of potentially life-threatening product failures). In statistical inference, likelihood ratios have a long history of use for decision making relating to model parameters (e.g., in evidence-based medicine and forensics). We propose a general prediction method, based on a likelihood ratio (LR) involving both the data and a future random variable. This general approach provides a way to identify prediction interval methods that have excellent statistical properties. For example, if a prediction method can be based on a pivotal quantity, our LR-based method will often identify it. For applications where a pivotal quantity does not exist, the LR-based method provides a procedure with good coverage properties for both continuous or discrete-data prediction applications. 

   more » « less
4. Multiple bias calibration for valid statistical inference under nonignorable nonresponse

   https://doi.org/10.1093/biomtc/ujaf044  

   Cho, Seonghun; Kim, Jae_Kwang; Qiu, Yumou (April 2025, Biometrics)

   ABSTRACT Valid statistical inference is notoriously challenging when the sample is subject to nonresponse bias. We approach this difficult problem by employing multiple candidate models for the propensity score (PS) function combined with empirical likelihood. By incorporating multiple working PS models into the internal bias calibration constraint in the empirical likelihood, the selection bias can be safely eliminated as long as the working PS models contain the true model and their expectations are equal to the true missing rate. The bias calibration constraint for the multiple PS models is called the multiple bias calibration. The study delves into the asymptotic properties of the proposed method and provides a comparative analysis through limited simulation studies against existing methods. To illustrate practical implementation, we present a real data analysis on body fat percentage using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dataset. 

   more » « less
5. The Effects of Gist Information and Scientific Quality on Damages in a Civil Trial

   Dellapaolera, K.S. (March 2020, Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract: 100 words Jurors are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom. To determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to make well-informed decisions, the present experiment utilized a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention and tested it against traditional legal safeguards (i.e., judge instructions) by varying the scientific quality of the evidence. The results indicate that jurors who viewed high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher than those who viewed low quality evidence, but were unable to moderate the credibility of the expert witness and apply damages appropriately resulting in poor calibration. Summary: <1000 words Jurors and juries are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom and it remains unclear when they will base their decisions on a reasonable understanding of the relevant scientific information. Without such knowledge, the ability of jurors and juries to make well-informed decisions may be at risk, increasing chances of unjust outcomes (e.g., false convictions in criminal cases). Therefore, there is a critical need to understand conditions that affect jurors’ and juries’ sensitivity to the qualities of scientific information and to identify safeguards that can assist with scientific calibration in the courtroom. The current project addresses these issues with an ecologically valid experimental paradigm, making it possible to assess causal effects of evidence quality and safeguards as well as the role of a host of individual difference variables that may affect perceptions of testimony by scientific experts as well as liability in a civil case. Our main goal was to develop a simple, theoretically grounded tool to enable triers of fact (individual jurors) with a range of scientific reasoning abilities to appropriately weigh scientific evidence in court. We did so by testing a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention in court, and testing it against traditional legal safeguards. Appropriate use of scientific evidence reflects good calibration – which we define as being influenced more by strong scientific information than by weak scientific information. Inappropriate use reflects poor calibration – defined as relative insensitivity to the strength of scientific information. Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) predicts that techniques for improving calibration can come from presentation of easy-to-interpret, bottom-line “gist” of the information. Our central hypothesis was that laypeople’s appropriate use of scientific information would be moderated both by external situational conditions (e.g., quality of the scientific information itself, a decision aid designed to convey clearly the “gist” of the information) and individual differences among people (e.g., scientific reasoning skills, cognitive reflection tendencies, numeracy, need for cognition, attitudes toward and trust in science). Identifying factors that promote jurors’ appropriate understanding of and reliance on scientific information will contribute to general theories of reasoning based on scientific evidence, while also providing an evidence-based framework for improving the courts’ use of scientific information. All hypotheses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework. Method Participants completed six questionnaires (counterbalanced): Need for Cognition Scale (NCS; 18 items), Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; 7 items), Abbreviated Numeracy Scale (ABS; 6 items), Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; 11 items), Trust in Science (TIS; 29 items), and Attitudes towards Science (ATS; 7 items). Participants then viewed a video depicting a civil trial in which the defendant sought damages from the plaintiff for injuries caused by a fall. The defendant (bar patron) alleged that the plaintiff (bartender) pushed him, causing him to fall and hit his head on the hard floor. Participants were informed at the outset that the defendant was liable; therefore, their task was to determine if the plaintiff should be compensated. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 experimental conditions: 2 (quality of scientific evidence: high vs. low) x 3 (safeguard to improve calibration: gist information, no-gist information [control], jury instructions). An expert witness (neuroscientist) hired by the court testified regarding the scientific strength of fMRI data (high [90 to 10 signal-to-noise ratio] vs. low [50 to 50 signal-to-noise ratio]) and gist or no-gist information both verbally (i.e., fairly high/about average) and visually (i.e., a graph). After viewing the video, participants were asked if they would like to award damages. If they indicated yes, they were asked to enter a dollar amount. Participants then completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Modified Short Form (PANAS-MSF; 16 items), expert Witness Credibility Scale (WCS; 20 items), Witness Credibility and Influence on damages for each witness, manipulation check questions, Understanding Scientific Testimony (UST; 10 items), and 3 additional measures were collected, but are beyond the scope of the current investigation. Finally, participants completed demographic questions, including questions about their scientific background and experience. The study was completed via Qualtrics, with participation from students (online vs. in-lab), MTurkers, and non-student community members. After removing those who failed attention check questions, 469 participants remained (243 men, 224 women, 2 did not specify gender) from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (70.2% White, non-Hispanic). Results and Discussion There were three primary outcomes: quality of the scientific evidence, expert credibility (WCS), and damages. During initial analyses, each dependent variable was submitted to a separate 3 Gist Safeguard (safeguard, no safeguard, judge instructions) x 2 Scientific Quality (high, low) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Consistent with hypotheses, there was a significant main effect of scientific quality on strength of evidence, F(1, 463)=5.099, p=.024; participants who viewed the high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher (M= 7.44) than those who viewed the low quality evidence (M=7.06). There were no significant main effects or interactions for witness credibility, indicating that the expert that provided scientific testimony was seen as equally credible regardless of scientific quality or gist safeguard. Finally, for damages, consistent with hypotheses, there was a marginally significant interaction between Gist Safeguard and Scientific Quality, F(2, 273)=2.916, p=.056. However, post hoc t-tests revealed significantly higher damages were awarded for low (M=11.50) versus high (M=10.51) scientific quality evidence F(1, 273)=3.955, p=.048 in the no gist with judge instructions safeguard condition, which was contrary to hypotheses. The data suggest that the judge instructions alone are reversing the pattern, though nonsignificant, those who received the no gist without judge instructions safeguard awarded higher damages in the high (M=11.34) versus low (M=10.84) scientific quality evidence conditions F(1, 273)=1.059, p=.30. Together, these provide promising initial results indicating that participants were able to effectively differentiate between high and low scientific quality of evidence, though inappropriately utilized the scientific evidence through their inability to discern expert credibility and apply damages, resulting in poor calibration. These results will provide the basis for more sophisticated analyses including higher order interactions with individual differences (e.g., need for cognition) as well as tests of mediation using path analyses. [References omitted but available by request] Learning Objective: Participants will be able to determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to award damages in a civil trial. 

   more » « less