Source author record

Hari Iyer

Hari Iyer appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Applications Genomics Quantitative Methods

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

A New String Edit Distance and Applications

String edit distances have been used for decades in applications ranging from spelling correction and web search suggestions to DNA analysis. Most string edit distances are variations of the Levenshtein distance and consider only single-character edits. In forensic applications polymorphic genetic markers such as short tandem repeats (STRs) are used. At these repetitive motifs the DNA copying errors consist of more than just single base differences. More often the phenomenon of ``stutter'' is observed, where the number of repeated units differs (by whole units) from the template. To adapt the Levenshtein distance to be suitable for forensic applications where DNA sequence similarity is of interest, a generalized string edit distance is defined that accommodates the addition or deletion of whole motifs in addition to single-nucleotide edits. A dynamic programming implementation is developed for computing this distance between sequences. The novelty of this algorithm is in handling the complex interactions that arise between multiple- and single-character edits. Forensic examples illustrate the purpose and use of the Restricted Forensic Levenshtein (RFL) distance measure, but applications extend to sequence alignment and string similarity in other biological areas, as well as dynamic programming algorithms more broadly.

preprint2022arXiv

Bayesian Reasoning and Evidence Communication

Many resources for forensic scholars and practitioners, such as journal articles, guidance documents, and textbooks, address how to make a value of evidence assessment in the form of a likelihood ratio (LR) when deciding between two competing propositions. These texts often describe experts presenting their LR values to other parties in the judicial system, such as lawyers, judges, and potentially jurors, but few texts explicitly address how a recipient is expected to utilize the provided LR value. Those that do often imply, or directly suggest, a hybrid modification of Bayes' rule in which a decision maker multiplies their prior odds with another person's assessment of LR to obtain their posterior odds. In this paper, we illustrate how someone adhering to Bayesian reasoning would update their personal uncertainty in response to someone else presenting a personal LR value (or any other form of an opinion) and emphasize that the hybrid approach is a departure from Bayesian reasoning. We further consider implications of recipients adhering to Bayesian reasoning on the role and ideal content of expert's reports and testimony and address published responses to our 2017 paper (Lund and Iyer, 2017), where we previously argued that the hybrid equation is not supported by Bayesian reasoning.

preprint2016arXiv

Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Metrological Perspective

In this article we provide a rebuttal against the possible perception that a single number, such as the Likelihood Ratio, can provide an objective, authoritative or definitive weight of evidence. We also illustrate the extent to which conclusions can vary depending on the assumptions used in the analysis, even under alternative assumptions that are judged to be consistent with available empirical information. To facilitate these goals, we introduce the notion of a Lattice of Assumptions and an Uncertainty Pyramid illustrated in the context of a previously published example involving glass evidence. We take the position that rather than focusing on a single number summary as the weight of evidence it is the duty of the forensic expert to assist the trier of fact in forming their own interpretations from a clear understanding of the objective and demonstrably available information. We hope the presented arguments will inspire those in the forensic science community to pursue establishing their practice on a solid foundation of measurement science.