CLPEX Chat Board

This may be the appropriate time to take a serious look into unifying and standardizing the comparative forensic sciences. The comparative methodology of ACE-V as well as various definitions of terms could be analyzed for purposes of such standardization. The SWG groups could create a master sub-committee that could review the various aspects directly related to all the comparative sciences and prioritize a list for review.

I find it rather odd that each science gives a slightly different version of a particular concept such as Identification/Individualization, ACE-V specifics, etc… This approach would allow the comparative forensic sciences to progress in a more linear and logical method.

An example of a standardized form of ACE-V follows: This definition has been compiled utilizing information from many different interrelated fields including artificial intelligence research, cognitive research, and their applications.

-----------------

STANDARDIZED ACE-V DEFINTION


ACE-V is an acronym for a formal comparison methodological process that is analogous to the scientific method. The purpose of the ACE-V comparison methodology is to individualize or exclude impressions or objects as having originating from an identical source or as being one in the same. The letters ACE are for Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation. V is the hypothesis-testing or verification phase of the process in which another qualified examiner repeats the process in order to see if the original hypothesis of individualization or exclusion is valid, thus proving or disproving the conclusions of the original examiner.

Explanation of ACE-V’s premises and processes.

The premise and process of the ACE-V methodology relies on the discovery of relevant and unique information that can be used in the comparison and prediction aspects regarding particular information sets. The process as a whole involves the sequential accumulation and correlation of relevant information that provides for a hypothesis of Individualization, Exclusion, or Inconclusive results. Inconclusive is where there is insufficient information to individualize or exclude the impression or mark in question.

The analysis stage of the process is a fundamental inventory of available information to be used in a comparison. This information is analyzed for its quantity, quality, and specificity.

The comparison stage involves the prediction of specific information, which has been identified and spatially located within one impression or object, then predicted to exist within the comparison exemplar. The comparison itself reveals whether this prediction is valid, invalid, or inconclusive in that the particular information cannot be compared. A lack of available comparison area may be due to excessive distortion of information or there is an unavailability of a particular comparison area in the second information set.

The evaluation in the ACE-V methodology is, in part, a combined assessment of the previous information generated from the first two stages of the ACE-V process. This assessment relies on accurate training, experience, comprehension of the principles of individualization, and of the ACE-V methodology itself.

The final stage in the ACE-V methodology is verification. Verification is a two-part process of hypothesis testing in which a second qualified examiner reviews the established hypothesis and utilized methodology then reinitiates the ACE process to test the original hypothesis. Verification is the culmination process of these two formal hypotheses, whereas, individualization is the product of verification in that the two formal hypotheses are in agreement.

When insufficient information is present it may not be possible to formally individualize or exclude a particular set of information. The proper result is a conclusion of Inconclusive. This may include the fact that a possible comparison or match has not been located, or that there is insufficient information present to formally exclude the possibility of a comparison match.

---------
BE SURE TO LOOK FOR THE LATEST VERSION FURTHER IN THIS THREAD.
cc

Craig, as a forensic scientist who had been trained simultaneously, yet independently, initially in 1984-1985 and continuing beyond, in the comparative science disciplines of latent prints, footwear and tire track, firearm toolmarks, and physical comparisons, I could not agree more with you. I was confused by the variety of terms and philosophies.

Forensic comparative science, should be forensic comparative science, and not sciences. We need to study the source of images, then images, and the human examiner. The human examiner is still the best system to discern details in images that vary in appearance. That is why I have recruited Dr. Busey of Indiana University Department of Psychology to help study the human expert and novices.

A combined and simplified set of terms and philosophy is what I have been trying to do since I started talking and writing about Forensic Individualization of Images Using Quality and Quantity of Details to the fingerprint, firearm, footwear and document forensic science communities. I struggled with the issues of potentially testifying in court about a variety of potentially different philosophies and terms, so I developed a strategy to explain them all under the one umbrella of forensic individualization of images, whether the source is only unique due to pattern formation in nature, or the source is human made and is repeatable with unique features within.

I teach ACE+V, Levels of Details, and the Quality Quantity relationship of Details to make determinations. I teach Repeatable Features and Unique Features in the Source, and Persistency of the Repeatable and Unique Features in the Source. I do this no matter the current specific discipline. I believe any source and the images of the source can explained in this manner.

John Vanderkolk

Craig and John,

Do you think that a standardized definition of ACE-V as a scientific method should include some reference to peer review?

It’s unclear to me whether this definition means that reproducing a conclusion does constitute as a valid form of peer review or does ACE-V not consider verification as a peer review process? If ACE-V doesn’t consider V a peer review process then the question becomes – is peer review a requirement of scientific methodology?

I think the main problems with the various definitions have to do with these questions and they’d need to be addressed in any standard definition.

Thanks,

ACE is a simple description of our ability to see and think.

ACE is also a structured approach to the visual examination process that results in a determination about two images that vary in appearances, made by the best known system to make judgments, the human expert.

Describing Verification, or V, is the current challenge. I like ACE and another peer reviewed ACE (pACE) that results in Verification (V) as a better description of what we do. If the peer review examination of the images does not result in V, we do not get to Verification, hence our conclusions of ACE and pACE have conflict or inconsistency that needs resolved.

Maybe I should better like: IF "ACE=pACE, V is achieved", instead of ACE+V=examination method.

Yes, I would like peer review included as well as John's fundemental ideas. Work it in and repost it. Ultimately, the idea is to have a consise, accurate and universal definition. Let us see what happens.

cc

Here is the latest version.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

UNIVERSAL DEFINITION of ACE-V Methodology
Used in Formal Forensic Comparative Science.

ACE-V is an acronym for a formal comparison methodological process that is analogous to the scientific method. The purpose of the ACEV comparison methodology is to individualize or exclude impressions or objects as having originating from an identical source or as being one in the same. The letters ACE are for Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation. V is the hypothesis-testing or verification phase of the process in which another qualified examiner repeats the process in order to see if the original hypothesis of individualization or exclusion is valid, thus proving or disproving the conclusions of the original examiner.

Explanation of ACE-V’s premises and processes.

The premise and process of the ACE-V methodology relies on the discovery of relevant and unique information that can be used in the comparison and prediction aspects regarding particular information sets. The process as a whole involves the sequential accumulation and correlation of relevant information that provides for a hypothesis of Individualization, Exclusion, or Inconclusive results. Inconclusive is where there is insufficient information to individualize or exclude the impression or mark in question.

The ANALYSIS stage of the process is a fundamental inventory of available informational components to be used in a comparison. This information is analyzed for its quantitative and qualitative aspects, as well as its specificity and relevance.

The COMPARISON stage involves the prediction of specific information, which has been identified and spatially located within one impression or object, then predicted to exist within the comparison exemplar. The comparison itself reveals whether this prediction is valid, invalid, or inconclusive in that the particular information cannot be compared. A lack of available comparison area may be due to excessive distortion of information or there is an unavailability of a particular comparison area in the second information set.

The EVALUATION in the ACE-V methodology is, in part, a combined assessment of the previous information generated from the first two stages of the ACE-V process. This assessment relies on accurate training, experience, comprehension of the principles of individualization, and of the ACE-V methodology itself.

The final stage in the ACE-V methodology is VERIFICATION. Verification is a two-part process of peer reviewed hypothesis testing in which a second qualified examiner examines the established hypothesis and utilized methodology while reinitiating the ACE process to test the original hypothesis. Verification is the culmination (phase transition) of the two examiners formal hypotheses into a single verified hypothesis by way of concurrence. Individualization (Identification) is the product itself, in that the two formal hypotheses are in agreement in that the hypothesis is valid.

When insufficient information is present it may not be possible to formally individualize or exclude particular information sets. The proper result is a conclusion of Inconclusive. This may include the fact that a possible comparison or (matching information) has not been discovered, or that there is insufficient information present to formally exclude the possibility of a comparison match.

John suggested (pACE) for a peer-reviewed verification. What I believe we are describing is an informational PHASE TRANSISTION. We lack a proper definition regarding INDIVIDULIZATION that includes this most important concept. Scientifically, we can't have individualization without it. Thus, we need to change the SWGFAST def. of individualization. I know I have been bugging everyone for years about this, but this UNIVERSAL ACE-V project may bring this critical issue to light.

The very definition individualization should include peer review for a "formalized hypothesis" of individualization. Verification is a (phase transition (PT)) of information. The information of ACE + ACE + PT = Individualization or Exclusion: on a formalized scientific level. PT is critical in understanding what is happening to the changing value of our information.

When water reaches zero Cº it goes through a phase transition. It is no longer water, it is now ice. Ice is the product of a phase transition.

Individualization (formal-scientific) is the product of an information phase transition, not of ACE alone.