TY  - JOUR
PY  - 2022//
TI  - A plague on both your houses: the debate about how to deal with 'inconclusive' conclusions when calculating error rates
JO  - Law, probability and risk
A1  - Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart
SP  - 127
EP  - 129
VL  - 21
IS  - 2
N2  - To the Editor,There is an ongoing debate about how to deal with 'inconclusive' conclusions when calculating error rates. Recent contributions to this debate include, in chronological order, Dror and Scurich (2020), Weller and Morris (2020), Biedermann and Kotsoglou (2021), Arkes and Koehler (2021), Dror (2022) and Arkes and Koehler (2022). All the proposed solutions are inappropriate because they do not address the real problem. The real problem is not what to do with 'inconclusive' conclusions but the fact that forensic practitioners report conclusions as 'identification', 'inconclusive' and 'exclusion' at all. The real solution is for practitioners to abandon this practice and, instead, adopt the logically correct framework for interpretation of forensic evidence, the likelihood-ratio framework. Rather than reporting each of their conclusions as one of three categories, practitioners should report them as continuously-valued likelihood-ratio values.1<p />  <p>Language: en</p>
LA  - en
SN  - 1470-8396
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgac015
ID  - ref1
ER  -