Law Probability & Risk

Papers
(The median citation count of Law Probability & Risk is 1. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2022-06-01 to 2026-06-01.)
ArticleCitations
We can do so much better than binary decisions and error rates: why don’t we?13
How the work being done on statistical fingerprint models provides the basis for a much broader and greater impact affecting many areas within the criminal justice system13
Evidence-based evaluations of criminal evidence—the role of evaluation structures for guilt determinations12
Information economics in the criminal standard of proof10
A plague on both your houses: The debate about how to deal with ‘inconclusive’ conclusions when calculating error rates7
Chain event graphs for assessing activity-level propositions in forensic science in relation to drug traces on banknotes5
Odds ratios as a measure of disproportionate treatment: application to jury venires2
Inconclusives in firearm error rate studies are not ‘a pass’2
Reconciling common-source, specific-source, feature-based, and score-based likelihood ratios2
Modeling the middle ground: A rejoinder to Biedermann, Sjerps, and Kafadar, Rodu, & Campbell-Aaron2
Advancing the conversation on forensic inconclusives1
Towards cumulative forensic science: a commentary on ‘Methodological problems in every black-box study of forensic firearm comparisons’1
Inconclusive conclusions in forensic science: rejoinders to Scurich, Morrison, Sinha and Gutierrez1
From causality to liability: integrating Bayesian inference and PageRank logic in legal responsibility assessment1
Bi-Gaussianized calibration of likelihood ratios1
Methodological problems in every black-box study of forensic firearm comparisons1
Signal detection theory fails to account for real-world consequences of inconclusive decisions1
Presumed prior, contextual prior, and bizarre consequences—a reply to Ronald Meester and Lonneke Stevens1
Training legal fact-finders to recognize probabilistic fallacies1
0.089498996734619