Statistics suggests that unanimous agreement in witnessed events may be sign of an error

March 23, 2016 by Bob Yirka report
Credit: George Hodan/Public Domain

(—A team of researchers with The University of Adelaide and one with University of Angers has found that the probability of a unanimous agreement in witnessed events is low enough that instances of such are likely a sign of an error. In their paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, the researchers suggest their findings could have an impact on fields as diverse as legal proceedings, archaeological assessments and even cryptographic testing.

When a jury is given testimony by many witnesses to a crime, all fingering the same person, the consensus is generally that the police have caught the right person. But, a statistical assessment of such instances by the research team suggests that may not always be the case. They suggest that the opposite may in fact be true, that the more witnesses fingering the same person, the greater likelihood there is that the wrong person has been caught.

The reasoning by the team goes along the lines of logic; if 100 people observe an apple sitting on an otherwise bare table and all confirm it was an apple, than there is a strong likelihood that it was an apple sitting there. But, what happens when the observation is not so simple—for example, what if 100 people see a man carrying a bag of money out of a bank after a robbery, and all 100 agree that it was the man police have identified as the robber. That might be a problem because prior research has shown that when asked to identify a person that witnesses have seen for just a few seconds, especially if that person is running away, can be as low as 50 percent correct. When performing Bayesian analysis on such scenarios, the team reports, the numbers grow worse as the number of people unanimously agrees on something they believe they have seen. Put another way, statistically speaking, it is nearly impossible for 100 to all correctly identify a person in such a situation—thus, if they do, it calls into question the validity of the results.

The researchers note that their findings apply to other areas as well—if 100 archeologists agree on the source of a find, for example, the odds are great that there is an error somewhere, because statistics suggests there should be at least some differences in the results.

Explore further: Overwhelming evidence? It's probably a bad thing

More information: Lachlan J. Gunn et al. Too good to be true: when overwhelming evidence fails to convince, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science (2016). DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2015.0748

Is it possible for a large sequence of measurements or observations, which support a hypothesis, to counterintuitively decrease our confidence? Can unanimous support be too good to be true? The assumption of independence is often made in good faith; however, rarely is consideration given to whether a systemic failure has occurred. Taking this into account can cause certainty in a hypothesis to decrease as the evidence for it becomes apparently stronger. We perform a probabilistic Bayesian analysis of this effect with examples based on (i) archaeological evidence, (ii) weighing of legal evidence and (iii) cryptographic primality testing. In this paper, we investigate the effects of small error rates in a set of measurements or observations. We find that even with very low systemic failure rates, high confidence is surprisingly difficult to achieve; in particular, we find that certain analyses of cryptographically important numerical tests are highly optimistic, underestimating their false-negative rate by as much as a factor of 280.

Related Stories

Overwhelming evidence? It's probably a bad thing

January 12, 2016

The old adage that says "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" has finally been put to the test – mathematically – in research led by the University of Adelaide.

Why too much evidence can be a bad thing

January 4, 2016

(—Under ancient Jewish law, if a suspect on trial was unanimously found guilty by all judges, then the suspect was acquitted. This reasoning sounds counterintuitive, but the legislators of the time had noticed ...

Social networks may be exaggerating risk of news events

April 21, 2015

(—A trio of researchers affiliated with the Max Planck Institute in Germany has found, via a small study, that news information passed through a social network, via one person to another, becomes shorter and more ...

Recommended for you

Scientists see order in complex patterns of river deltas

October 19, 2017

River deltas, with their intricate networks of waterways, coastal barrier islands, wetlands and estuaries, often appear to have been formed by random processes, but scientists at the University of California, Irvine and other ...

Fatty bird gland preserved over 48 million years

October 18, 2017

(—A team of researchers from the U.S., Ireland, Germany and the U.K. has found evidence of preservation of a fatty oil gland from a 48-million-year-old fossilized bird. In their paper published in Proceedings of ...

Waiting periods reduce deaths from guns, study suggests

October 17, 2017

(—A trio of researchers with Harvard Business School has found evidence that they claim shows gun deaths decline when states enact waiting period laws. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2016
proof that global warming is a hoax guys :P
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2016
proof that global warming is a hoax guys :P

Your dissent just confirmed it's not
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2016
"Science" used to declare itself the solution to all problems. Then they stopped solving problems and actually started making a number of them for people. That was New World Order influence, perpetuating situations so they can sell expensive half solutions, and causing problems part of the New World Order initiative to try to enslave humanity. But it endangered the appearance of "science". So "science" stopped saying they solved problems and only that they are the best and only guaranteed methodology for finding the truth. Then they started validating powerful toxins put on the market labeled as "medicine". Now, "science" is admitting it can't be counted on at all. It seems likely they are gearing up to stop bettering people's lives completely and acting like the universe is preventing them. Incidentally, with so many claiming confidence in frauds like "relativity" and "evolution", where is the call to begin to question them?
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2016
Wasn't this exact article here a few months ago?
not rated yet Mar 23, 2016
So, when the MSM is unanimous regarding some matter, it is then clear that there is a fundamental error? Which is their normal state of affairs. There is no opposition, there is no discussion, there is only the appearance of 'contrary' positions, in any of them.

It is like that formal, published and peer reviewed university study said: that over 255 news organizations which represent over 90% of the media (all formats) in the USA, are owned and controlled by a total of seven people.

Which WAS actually against the law, 20 years ago, but one particular president (and party, with support from the 'other side'--more illusions of 'sides') cut down the law that prevented fascist unified oligarchy in the media. The law that was there to prevent media from becoming a single controlled voice.

Six of those people are of the same ethnic, genetic, political, and religious background. The last one (seventh) is considered to be a closet version of the other six.

not rated yet Mar 24, 2016
"if 100 people observe an apple sitting on an otherwise bare table and all confirm it was an apple, than there is a strong likelihood that it was an apple sitting there."
THEN, you meant THEN

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.