Results from a set of comparisons of 3D images evaluated with an automatic algorithm
| Validity and reliability of forensic firearms examiners Mattijssen et al. (2020) . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study type . | Test set . | Participants . | . | |
| . | # Knowns . | # Unknowns . | . | . |
| Open set | 200 | 79600 | Computer (3D algorithm) | |
| Experiment count data | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | Source total | |
| Same Source | 198 | 0 | 2 | 200 |
| Different source | 999 | 0 | 78 601 | 79 600 |
| Conclusion total | 1197 | 0 | 78 603 | 79 800 |
| Conclusion-specific probabilities | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | ||
| Same source | 0.1654 | – | 0.0000 | Experiment count data are divided by conclusion totals (3rd row) |
| Different source | 0.8346 | – | 1.0000 | |
| Total # comparisons | 1197 | – | 78603 | |
| Source-specific probabilities | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | Total # comparisons | |
| Same source | 0.9900 | – | 0.0100 | 200 |
| Different source | 0.0126 | – | 0.9874 | 79 600 |
| Experiment count data are divided by source totals (last column) | ||||
| Overall error rates | ||||
| Opt. | Meaning | Missed identification | Missed elimination | Total |
| 2 | FTE error | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| 3 | Process error | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| 4 | Inconcl. = Elim. | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| Validity and reliability of forensic firearms examiners Mattijssen et al. (2020) . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study type . | Test set . | Participants . | . | |
| . | # Knowns . | # Unknowns . | . | . |
| Open set | 200 | 79600 | Computer (3D algorithm) | |
| Experiment count data | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | Source total | |
| Same Source | 198 | 0 | 2 | 200 |
| Different source | 999 | 0 | 78 601 | 79 600 |
| Conclusion total | 1197 | 0 | 78 603 | 79 800 |
| Conclusion-specific probabilities | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | ||
| Same source | 0.1654 | – | 0.0000 | Experiment count data are divided by conclusion totals (3rd row) |
| Different source | 0.8346 | – | 1.0000 | |
| Total # comparisons | 1197 | – | 78603 | |
| Source-specific probabilities | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | Total # comparisons | |
| Same source | 0.9900 | – | 0.0100 | 200 |
| Different source | 0.0126 | – | 0.9874 | 79 600 |
| Experiment count data are divided by source totals (last column) | ||||
| Overall error rates | ||||
| Opt. | Meaning | Missed identification | Missed elimination | Total |
| 2 | FTE error | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| 3 | Process error | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| 4 | Inconcl. = Elim. | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
Results from a set of comparisons of 3D images evaluated with an automatic algorithm
| Validity and reliability of forensic firearms examiners Mattijssen et al. (2020) . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study type . | Test set . | Participants . | . | |
| . | # Knowns . | # Unknowns . | . | . |
| Open set | 200 | 79600 | Computer (3D algorithm) | |
| Experiment count data | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | Source total | |
| Same Source | 198 | 0 | 2 | 200 |
| Different source | 999 | 0 | 78 601 | 79 600 |
| Conclusion total | 1197 | 0 | 78 603 | 79 800 |
| Conclusion-specific probabilities | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | ||
| Same source | 0.1654 | – | 0.0000 | Experiment count data are divided by conclusion totals (3rd row) |
| Different source | 0.8346 | – | 1.0000 | |
| Total # comparisons | 1197 | – | 78603 | |
| Source-specific probabilities | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | Total # comparisons | |
| Same source | 0.9900 | – | 0.0100 | 200 |
| Different source | 0.0126 | – | 0.9874 | 79 600 |
| Experiment count data are divided by source totals (last column) | ||||
| Overall error rates | ||||
| Opt. | Meaning | Missed identification | Missed elimination | Total |
| 2 | FTE error | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| 3 | Process error | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| 4 | Inconcl. = Elim. | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| Validity and reliability of forensic firearms examiners Mattijssen et al. (2020) . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study type . | Test set . | Participants . | . | |
| . | # Knowns . | # Unknowns . | . | . |
| Open set | 200 | 79600 | Computer (3D algorithm) | |
| Experiment count data | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | Source total | |
| Same Source | 198 | 0 | 2 | 200 |
| Different source | 999 | 0 | 78 601 | 79 600 |
| Conclusion total | 1197 | 0 | 78 603 | 79 800 |
| Conclusion-specific probabilities | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | ||
| Same source | 0.1654 | – | 0.0000 | Experiment count data are divided by conclusion totals (3rd row) |
| Different source | 0.8346 | – | 1.0000 | |
| Total # comparisons | 1197 | – | 78603 | |
| Source-specific probabilities | ||||
| Identification | Inconclusive | Elimination | Total # comparisons | |
| Same source | 0.9900 | – | 0.0100 | 200 |
| Different source | 0.0126 | – | 0.9874 | 79 600 |
| Experiment count data are divided by source totals (last column) | ||||
| Overall error rates | ||||
| Opt. | Meaning | Missed identification | Missed elimination | Total |
| 2 | FTE error | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| 3 | Process error | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
| 4 | Inconcl. = Elim. | 0.0100 | 0.0126 | 0.0125 |
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
