Publications

2024
  • Biedermann A., Kotsoglou K. N. 2024, Zur (Un-)Wissenschaftlichkeit der Individualisierungspraxis in forensisch-wissenschaftlichen Gutachten, sui generis, 11–20, doi.org/10.21257/sg.247. [online][PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Kotsoglou K. N. 2024, The unbearable lightness of ignoring axiomatic principles – A response to: “On coping in a non-binary world: Rejoinder to Biedermann and Kotsoglou” (by Nicholas Scurich and Richard S. John, in: Statistics and Public Policy, 2024). [PDF][PubPeer][RG]
  • Biedermann A., Kotsoglou K. N. 2024, Commentary on “Three-Way ROCs for Forensic Decision Making” by Nicholas Scurich and Richard S. John (in: Statistics and Public Policy), Statistics and Public Policy, 11, 1–2. [PDF]
2023
  • Biedermann A., Vuille J. 2023, Was ist der Beweiswert von DNA-Analyseergebnissen? 2. Teil: Probleme bei der Anwendung der grundlegenden Prinzipien der Befundbewertung, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 141, 261–281. [PDF]
  • Vuille J., Biedermann A. 2023, Was ist der Beweiswert von DNA-Analyseergebnissen? 1. Teil: Allgemeine Betrachtungen zum befundbewertenden Bericht, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 141, 137–156. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Taroni F. 2023, Bayesian networks and influence diagrams, in: Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Third Edition, Houck M. (Eds.), Oxford: Elsevier, 271–280. [PDF]
  • Champod C., Biedermann A. 2023, Overview and meaning of identification/individualizatio, in: Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Third Edition, Houck M. (Eds.), Oxford: Elsevier, 53–62. [PDF]
  • Taroni F., Biedermann A., Aitken C. 2023, Statistical interpretation of evidence: Bayesian analysis, in: Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Third Edition, Houck M. (Eds.), Oxford: Elsevier, 656–663. [PDF]
2022
  • Biedermann A., Taroni F. 2022, Évaluation probabiliste et décision d’identification, in: Traces d’armes à feu, Expertise des armes et des éléments de munitions dans l’investigation criminelle, 3rd Ed., Gallusser A. et al. (Eds.), Lausanne: EPFL Press, 91–120. [PDF]
  • Werner D., Gobat G., Rhumorbarbe D., Biedermann A., Taroni F., Gallusser A. 2022, Examen et interprétation des traces sur les éléments de munitions, in: Traces d’armes à feu, Expertise des armes et des éléments de munitions dans l’investigation criminelle, 3rd Ed., Gallusser A. et al. (Eds.), Lausanne: EPFL Press, 373–432. [PDF]
  • Gassner A.-L., Werner D., Biedermann A., Robyr O., Taroni F., Gallusser A. 2022, Examen et interprétation des résidus de tir, in: Traces d’armes à feu, Expertise des armes et des éléments de munitions dans l’investigation criminelle, 3rd Ed., Gallusser A. et al. (Eds.), Lausanne: EPFL Press, 433–521. [PDF]
  • Bozza S., Taroni F., Biedermann A., 2022, Bayes factors for forensic decision analysis with R, Springer Texts in Statistics, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09839-0. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Koehler J. J. 2022, Influence diagrams for complex litigation, Jurimetrics, 62 (Winter), 131–171. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Machine learning enthusiasts should stick to the facts. Response to Morrison et al. (2022), Forensic Science International: Synergy, 4, 100229, doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100229. [PDF] [PDF2][PDF3 Published Version]
  • Kotsoglou K. N., Biedermann A. 2022, Inroads into the ultimate issue rule? Structural elements of communication between experts and fact finders, The Journal of Criminal Law, 86, 223–240, doi.org/10.1177/00220183211073640. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A. 2022, The strange persistence of (source) “identification” claims in forensic literature through descriptivism, diagnosticism and machinism, Forensic Science International: Synergy, 4, 100222. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Kotsoglou K. N. 2022, (Un-)Interpretability in expert evidence: an inquiry into the frontiers of evidential assessment, Quaestio facti (Revista Internacional sobre Razonamiento Probatorio Quaestio facti. International Journal on Evidential Legal Reasoning), 3, 481–515, doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i3.22599. [PDF]
2021
  • Taroni F., Bozza S., Biedermann A. 2021, The logic of inference and decision for scientific evidence, in: Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law, Dahlman C., Stein A., Tuzet G. (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 251–266. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Caruso D., Kotsoglou K. 2021, Decision theory, relative plausibility and the criminal standard of proof, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 15, 131–157, doi.org/10.1007/s11572-020-09527-8. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Kotsoglou K. 2021, Forensic science and the principle of excluded middle: “Inconclusive decisions” and the structure of error rate studies, Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3, 100147, doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100147. [PDF]
2020
  • Kotsoglou K., Biedermann A., Vuille J. 2020, DNA und Beweiswürdigung – Der statistische Rubikon und die Dogmatik der Identitätsfeststellung, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Straftrechtswissenschaft, 132, 891–937, doi.org/10.1515/zstw-2020-0032. [PDF]
  • Taroni F., Bozza S., Biedermann A. 2020, Decision theory, in: Handbook of Forensic Statistics, Banks D. L., Kafadar K., Kaye D.H., Tackett M. (Eds.), Chapman & Hall/CRC Handbooks of Modern Statistical Methods, Chapter 5, 103–130. [PDF]
  • Pope S., Biedermann A. (Eds.) 2o20, The dialogue between forensic scientists, statisticians and lawyers about complex scientific issues for court [E-book], Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA, doi.org/10.3389/978-2-88966-049-0 (11 articles, 22 authors). [PDF][HTML]
  • Biedermann A., Kotsoglou K. 2020, Digital evidence exceptionalism? A review and discussion of conceptual hurdles in digital evidence transformation, Forensic Science International: Synergy, 2, 262–274, doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.004. [PDF] [HTML]
  • Pope S., Biedermann A. 2020, Editorial: The dialogue between forensic scientists, statisticians and lawyers about complex scientific issues for court, Frontiers in Genetics, 11, Article 704, 1–2. doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00704. [PDF]
  • Lau T., Biedermann A. 2020, Assessing AI output in legal decision-making with nearest neighbors, Penn State Law Review, 124, 609–655. [PDF] [SSRN]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. 2020, L’individualizzazione come decisione, Philosophical Readings, 20, 335–347. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3854491. [WEB] [PDF] [Translation of: Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. 2016, The decisionalization of individualization, Forensic Science International, 266, 29-38, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.029. Translated by Marcello di Bello.]
  • Biedermann A. 2020, Letter to the Editor: Commentary on “Is it possible to predict the origin of epithelial cells? – A comparison of secondary transfer of skin epithelial cells versus vaginal mucous membrane cells by direct contact, M.M. Bouzga et al., Science & Justice, doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.02.003”, Science & Justice, 60, 201–203, doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.04.005. [PDF]
  • Cole S.A., Biedermann A. 2020, How can a forensic result be a “decision”? A critical analysis of ongoing reforms of forensic reporting formats for federal examiners, Houston Law Review, 57, 551–592. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. 2020, Normative decision analysis in forensic science, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28, 7–25, doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9232-2. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F., Vuille J. 2020, Computational normative decision support structures of forensic interpretation in the legal process, SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 17, 83–124. doi.org/10.2966/scrip.170120.83. [PDF] [HTML]
2019
  • Hicks T., Biedermann A., Taroni F., Champod C. 2019, Problematic reporting in DNA cases: the need for accredited formats and certified reporting competence, Forensic Science International : Genetics Supplement Series, 7, 205–207. doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.09.079. [PDF]
  • Vuille J., Biedermann A. 2019, Une preuve scientifique suffit-elle pour fonder une condamnation pénale?, Revue de droit suisse, 138, 491–512. [PDF]
  • Caruso D., Biedermann A., Vuille J., Gilby D. 2019, In support of a decisional paradigm for assisted dying, Criminal Law Journal, 43, 254–273. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Gittelson S. 2019, Letter to the editor: Commentary on “Strategic choice in linear sequential unmasking, Roger Koppl, Science & Justice, doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.10.010”, Science & Justice, 59, 362–365. doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2019.01.004. [PDF]
  • Jackson G., Biedermann A. 2019, “Source” or “Activity” What is the level of issue in a criminal trial?, Significance (Special Issue: Forensic Science and Statistics), April 2019, Volume 16, Issue 2, 36–39. doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01253.x. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Hicks T. 2019, Letter to the Editor: Commentary on “Dennis McNevin, Bayesian interpretation of discrete class characteristics, Forensic Science International, 292 (2018) 125–130”, Forensic Science International, 297, e20–e21, doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.005. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F., Vuille J. 2019, Are inconclusive decisions in forensic science as deficient as they are said to be?, Frontiers in Psychology (Cognition), 10, Article 520, 1–9, doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00520. [PDF]
  • Vuille J., Biedermann A. 2019, Correspondances partielles d’ADN et identifications erronées, Forumpoenale, 12 (1), 58–64. [1662-5536] [PDF]
  • Vuille J., Biedermann A. 2019, Le déclin du mythe de l’infaillibilité des empreintes digitales, Plaidoyer: revue juridique et politique, 37 (1), 16–17. [ISSN: 1420-5556] [PDF] Translated as:
    • Vuille J., Biedermann A. 2019, Auf Fingerabdrücke ist nicht immer Verlass, Plädoyer : das Magazin für Recht und Politik, 37(2), 20–21. [ISSN: 1420-5556] [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Vuille J., Bozza S., Taroni F. 2019, Letter to the Editor — Commentary on: Dror IG, Langenburg G. “Cannot decide”: the fine line between appropriate inconclusive determinations versus unjustifiably deciding not to decide, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64, 318–321, doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13944. [PDF]
2018
  • Biedermann A., Vuille J. 2018, The decisional nature of probability and plausibility assessments in juridical evidence and proof, International Commentary on Evidence, 16, 1–30, doi.org/10.1515/ice-2019-0003. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F., Garbolino P. 2018, A formal approach to qualifying and quantifying the ‘goodness’ of forensic identification decisions, Law, Probability and Risk, 17, 295–310, doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgy016. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Vuille J. 2018, Understanding the logic of forensic identification decisions (without numbers), sui generis, 397–413, doi.org/10.21257/sg.83. [online] [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Kotsoglou N. 2018, Decisional dimensions in expert witness testimony – A structural analysis, Frontiers in Psychology (Cognition), 9, Article 2073, Research topic ‘Judgment and Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Perspectives’, 1–15, doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02073. [online] [PDF]
  • Thompson W.C., Vuille J., Taroni F., Biedermann A. 2018, 独特性之后:法庭科学意见的演进 (After uniqueness: the evolution of forensic science opinions), Henry Zhuhao Wang (transl.), 证据科学 (Evidence Science), 26, 503–513, ISSN 1674–1226. [PDF]
  • Taroni F., Biedermann A., Vuille J., Bozza S. 2018, Statistical adhockeries are no criteria for legal decisions – The case of the expert medical report on the assessment of urine specimens collected among athletes having participated to the Vancouver and Sochi Winter Olympic Games, Frontiers in Sociology (Research topic ‘The interface between forensic scientists and statisticians when calculating likelihood ratios for low template and complex DNA results’), doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00025. [online] [PDF]
  • Aitken C., Nordgaard A., Taroni F., Biedermann A. 2018, Commentary: Likelihood ratio as weight of forensic evidence: A closer look, Frontiers in Genetics, 9, 1-2, doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00224. [PDF]
  • Taylor D., Kokshoorn B., Biedermann A. 2018, Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: A review, Forensic Science International: Genetics, 36, 34–49, doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.06.001. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Taroni F., Bozza S., Augsburger M., Aitken C. 2018, Critical analysis of forensic cut-offs and legal thresholds: a coherent approach to inference and decision, Forensic Science International, 288, 72–80, doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.030. [PDF]
  • Thompson W.C., Vuille J., Taroni F., Biedermann A. 2018, After uniqueness: the evolution of forensic science opinions, Judicature, 102, 18–27, ISSN 0022-5800. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. 2018, Analysing and exemplifying forensic conclusion criteria in terms of Bayesian decision theory, Science & Justice, 58, 159–165, doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.07.002. [PDF]
  • Taylor D., Biedermann A., Hicks T., Champod C. 2018, A template for constructing Bayesian networks in forensic biology cases when considering activity level propositions, Forensic Science International: Genetics, 33, 136–146, doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.12.006. [PDF]
2017
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F., Aitken C. 2017, The meaning of justified subjectivism and its role in the reconciliation of recent disagreements over forensic probabilism, Science & Justice (Virtual Special Issue “Measuring and reporting the precision of forensic likelihood ratios”), 57, 477-483, doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.08.005. [PDF]
  • Hicks T., Biedermann A., de Koeijer J.A., Taroni F., Champod C., Evett I.W. 2017, Reply to Morrison et al. (2016) Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison – A response to Hicks et alii (2015) The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions, Science & Justice, 57, 401-402, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.04.005. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Zhang B. 2017, Preface for the 2nd ISSSES special issue, Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 3, 47-48, dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_50_17. [PDF]
  • Gaborini L., Biedermann A., Taroni F. 2017, Towards a Bayesian evaluation of features in questioned handwritten signatures, Science & Justice, 57, 209-220, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.01.004. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F., Lucena Molina JJ. 2017, Reconsiderando la individualizacion forense como una decision (Rethinking forensic individualization as a decision), Revista Española de Medicina Legal, 43, 87-88, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reml.2016.11.001. [PDF]
  • Moreillon L., Vuille J., Biedermann A., Champod C. 2017, Les nouvelles lignes directrices du European Network of Forensic Science Institutes en matière d’évaluation et de communication des résultats d’analyses et d’expertises scientifiques, forumpoenale, 105-110. [PDF]
  • Taylor D., Biedermann A., Samie L., Pun K.-M., Hicks T., Champod C. 2017, Helping to distinguish primary from secondary transfer events for trace DNA, Forensic Science International: Genetics, 28, 155-177, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.02.008. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Champod C., Willis S. 2017, Development of European standards for evaluative reporting in forensic science: The gap between intentions and perceptions, The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Special issue on Proof in Modern Litigation: Selected Essays of the 5th International Conference on Evidence Law and Forensic Science, 21, 14-29, doi: doi.org/10.1177/1365712716674796. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F., Aitken C. 2017, The consequences of understanding expert probability reporting as a decision, Science & Justice, Special Issue on Measuring and Reporting the Precision of Forensic Likelihood Ratios, 57, 80-85, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.10.005. [PDF]
2016
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. 2016, La naturaleza decisoria de las conclusiones de los expertos en ciencia forense (The decisionalization of individualization), Teoria y derecho, 20, 262-284, ISSN 1888–3443.  [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Champod C., Jackson G., Gill P., Taylor D., Butler J., Morling N., Hicks T., Vuille J., Taroni F. 2016, Evaluation of forensic DNA traces when propositions of interest relate to activities: analysis and discussion of recurrent concerns, Frontiers in Genetics, Statistical Genetics and Methodology (Research topic ‘The interface between forensic scientists and statisticians when calculating likelihood ratios for low template and complex DNA results’), 7, 215, 1-12, doi: doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2016.00215. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F., Li B., Zhao D. 2016, The decisionalization of individualization (Chinese translation), (Evidence Science), 24, 627-641, ISSN 1674–1226. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F., Aitken C. 2016, Reframing the debate: a question of probability, not of likelihood ratio, Science & Justice, Special Issue on Measuring and Reporting the Precision of Forensic Likelihood Ratios, 56, 392-396, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.05.008. [PDF]
  • Marquis R., Biedermann A., Cadola L., Champod C., Gueissaz L., Massonnet G., Mazzella WD, Taroni F, Hicks T. 2016, Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: Benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings, Science & Justice, 56, 364-370, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.05.009. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F., Fürbach M., Li B., Mazzella W.D. 2016, Analysis and evaluation of magnetism of black toners on documents printed by electrophotographic systems, Forensic Science International, 267, 157-165, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.08.024. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. 2016, The decisionalization of individualization, Forensic Science International, 266, 29-38, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.029. [online] [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Vuille J. 2016, Digital evidence, ‘absence’ of data and ambiguous patterns of reasoning, Digital Investigation (DFRWS 2016 Europe (Digital Forensic Research Workshop), Proceedings of the Third Annual DFRWS Europe Conference), 16, S86-S96, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2016.01.011. [PDF]
  • Taroni F., Bozza S., Biedermann A., Aitken C.G.G. 2016, Rejoinder, Law, Probability and Risk, 15, 31-34. [PDF]
  • Taroni F., Bozza S., Biedermann A., Aitken C.G.G. 2016, Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratio (with discussion), Law, Probability and Risk, 15, 1-16. [PDF]
  • Biedermann A., Hicks T. 2016, The importance of critically examining the level of propositions when evaluating forensic DNA results, Frontiers in Genetics, Genomic Assay Technology (Research topic ‘The interface between forensic scientists and statisticians when calculating likelihood ratios for low template and complex DNA results’), 7, 8, dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2016.00008. [PDF] [online]
  • Taroni F., Biedermann A., Bozza S. 2016, Statistical hypothesis testing and common misinterpretations: Should we abandon p-value in forensic science applications?, Forensic Science International, 259, e32-e36, doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.11.013. [PDF]
  • Champod C., Biedermann A., Vuille J., Willis S., De Kinder J. 2016, ENFSI Guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science: A primer for legal practitioners.
    • Distributed at: American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2016 Annual Meeting, Session “Forensic sciences: toward a stronger scientific framework” (February 14th, 2016), Washington DC. [PDF]
    • Published also in: Criminal Law & Justice Weekly 2016, 180, 189-193, ISBN/ISSN Z000050570119. [PDF]
2015

Chapters

  • Vuille J., Biedermann A., Taroni F. 2015, Accounting for the potential of error in the evaluation of the weight of scientific evidence, in : Understanding Wrongful Conviction. The Protection of the Innocent Across Europe and America), collana editoriale ‘Giustizia penale europea’, Luparia L. (Ed.), Milano: Wolters Kluwer, 39–55.
  • Aitken C.G.G., Taroni F., Biedermann A. 2015, Statistical interpretation of evidence : Bayesian analysis, in: Forensic Chemistry, First Edition, Houck M. (Ed.), Waltham : Academic Press, 331–336. Also reprinted in: Forensic Biology, First Edition, 2015, Houck M. (Ed.), San Diego : Academic Press/Elsevier, 155–161.

Peer-reviewed articles

  • Taroni F., Biedermann A. 2015, Uncertainty in forensic science: experts, probabilities and Bayes’ theorem, Statistica Applicata – Italian Journal of Applied Statistics, 27, 129-144, ISSN 1125-1964. [PDF]
  • Hicks T., Biedermann A., de Koeijer J.A., Taroni F., Champod C., Evett I.W. 2015, The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions, Science & Justice, 55, 520–525.
  • Biedermann A. 2015, The role of the subjectivist position in the probabilization of forensic science, Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 1, 140–148. [PDF]

Letters and commentaries

  • Biedermann A., Vuille J., Taroni F., Champod C. 2015, The need for reporting standards in forensic science, Law, Probability and Risk, 14, 169-173, doi:10.1093/lpr/mgv003.
  • Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. 2015, Prediction in forensic science : a critical examination of current understandings, Frontiers in Psychology, Quantitative Psychology and Measurement (Research topic ‘Judgment and decision under uncertainty : Theory and measurement’), 6, 737, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00737. [Open Access]
  • Gallidabino M., Biedermann A., Taroni F. 2015, Forensic interpretation of GSR particle findings: is the challenge really statistical? (commentary on: Gauriot R, Gunaratnam L, Moroni R, Reinikainen T, Corander R. Statistical challenges in the quantification of gunshot residue evidence. J Forensic Sci 2013; 58 (5); 1149–1155.), Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60, 539–541.
  • Taroni F., Biedermann A. 2015, Comment on R. G. Cowell et al., Analysis of forensic DNA mixtures with artefacts (with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series C, Applied Statistics), 64, 1–48 (at pp. 37–38).

Full lists of publications of Alex Biedermann are available on Research Gate and Unisciences. A limited number of publications is also available on SSRN.