Publications

• 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

---

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