[3] [3] BiedermannA, BozzaS, TaroniF. Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: underlying logic and argumentative implications. Forensic Sci Int. 2008; 177: 120–132.

[4] [4] BiedermannA, BozzaS, TaroniF. The decisionalization of individualization. Forensic Sci Int. 2016; 266: 29–38.

[5] [5] BiedermannA, BozzaS, TaroniF, et al. The consequences of understanding expert probability reporting as a decision. Sci Justice. 2017; 57: 80–85.

[6] [6] BiedermannA, TaroniF, BozzS, et al. Critical analysis of forensic cut-offs and legal thresholds: a coherent approach to inference and decision. Forensic Sci Int. 2018; 288: 72–80.

[7] [7] TaroniF, BozzaS, BiedermannA. Decision theory. In: BanksDL, KafadarK, KayeDH, et al, editors. Handbook of forensic statistics. New York (NY): Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020. p. 103–130.

[8] [8] TaroniF, BozzaS, BiedermannA. The logic of inference and decision for scientific evidence. In: DahlmanC, SteinA, TuzetG, editors. Philosophical foundations of evidence law. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2021. p. 251–266.

[9] [9] LindleyDV. The philosophy of statistics. J R Stat Soc Ser D. 2000; 49: 293–337.

[10] [10] LindleyDV. Letter to editor. Teaching Statistics. 2002; 24: 22–23.

[11] [11] LindleyDV. Understanding uncertainty. Hoboken (NJ): JohnWiley & Sons; 2006.

[12] [12] BiedermannA. Your uncertainty, your probability, your decision. Front Genet. 2013; 4: 148.

[13] [13] CookR, EvettIW, JacksonG, et al. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci Justice. 1998; 38: 151–156.

[14] [14] CookR, EvettIW, JacksonG, et al. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice. 1998; 38: 231–239.

[15] [15] BiedermannA, TaroniF, GarbolinoP. Equal prior probabilities: can one do any better?Forensic Sci Int. 2007; 172: 85–93.

[16] [16] TaroniF, BiedermannA. Inadequacies of posterior probabilities for the assessment of scientific evidence. Law Probab Risk. 2005; 4: 89–114.

[17] [17] MarquisR, BiedermannA, CadolaL, et al. Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings. Sci Justice. 2016; 56: 364–370.

[18] [18] HuberRA, HeadrickAM. Handwriting identification: facts and fundamentals. 1st ed. New York (NY): CRC Press; 1999.

[20] [20] FoundB, SitaJ, RogersDK. The development of a program for characterising forensic handwriting examiners' expertise: signature examination pilot study. J Forensic Doc Exam. 1999; 12: 69–80.

[21] [21] KamM, WetsteinJ, ConnR. Proficiency of professional document examiners in writer identification. J Forensic Sci. 1994; 39: 5–14.

[22] [22] KamM, FieldingG, ConnR. Writer identification by professional document examiners. J Forensic Sci. 1997; 42: 14207J–14786J.

[23] [23] KamM, GummadidalaK, FieldingG, et al. Signature authentication by forensic document examiners. J Forensic Sci. 2001; 46: 884–888.

[24] [24] PetracoN, MohammedLA. Basic statistical concepts for questioned document examiners. Philadelphia (PA): Annual Meeting of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners; 2011.

[25] [25] ArkesHR, KoehlerJJ. Inconclusives and error rates in forensic science: a signal detection theory approach. Law Probab Risk. 2022; 20: 153–168.

[26] [26] HuberRA, HeadrickAMT. Let's do it by the numbers. Forensic Sci Int. 1990; 46: 209–218.

[27] [27] KöllerN, NissenK, RiebM, et al. [Probability conclusions in expert opinions on handwriting: substantiation and standardization of probability statements in expert opinions]. Munich (Germany): Wolters Kluwer Deutschland GmbH; 2004. German.

[28] [28] FoundB, BirdC. The modular forensic handwriting method—2016 version. J Forensic Doc Exam. 2016; 26: 7–83.