The Annals of Applied Statistics

The rarity of DNA profiles

Bruce S. Weir

Full-text: Open access


It is now widely accepted that forensic DNA profiles are rare, so it was a surprise to some people that different people represented in offender databases are being found to have the same profile. In the first place this is just an illustration of the birthday problem, but a deeper analysis must take into account dependencies among profiles caused by family or population membership.

Article information

Ann. Appl. Stat., Volume 1, Number 2 (2007), 358-370.

First available in Project Euclid: 30 November 2007

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)

Zentralblatt MATH identifier

DNA profiles forensic profiles birthday problem population genetics relatives inbreeding


Weir, Bruce S. The rarity of DNA profiles. Ann. Appl. Stat. 1 (2007), no. 2, 358--370. doi:10.1214/07-AOAS128.

Export citation


  • Anonymous (1997). DNA fingerprinting comes of age. Science 278 1407.
  • Ayres, K. L. and Overall, A. D. J. (1999). Allowing for within-subpopulation inbreeding in forensic match probabilities. Forensic Science International 103 207–216.
  • Balding, D. J. (1999). When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique? Science and Justice 39 257–260.
  • Balding, D. J. and Donnelly, P. (1995). Inference in forensic identification. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A 158 21–53.
  • Balding, D. J. and Nichols, R. A. (1997). Significant genetic correlations among Caucasians at forensic DNA loci. Heredity 78 583–589.
  • Budowle, B. and Moretti, T. R. (1999). Genotype profiles for six population groups at the 13 CODIS short tandem repeat core loci and other PCR-based loci. Forensic Science Communications 1999. Available at
  • Diaconis, P. and Mosteller, F. (1989). Methods for studying coincidences. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 84 853–861.
  • Eggleston, R. (1983). Evidence, Proof and Probability, 2nd ed. Wiedenfield and Nicholson, London.
  • Fung, W. K., Carracedo, A. and Hu, Y.-Q. (2003). Testing for kinship in a subdivided population. Forensic Science International 135 105–109.
  • Galton, F. (1892). Fingerprints. MacMillan, London.
  • Kingston, C. R. (1965). Applications of probability theory in criminalistics. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 60 70–80.
  • Lenth, R. V. (1986). On identification by probability. J. Forensic Science Society 26 197–213.
  • Mosteller, F. (1962). Understanding the birthday problem. The Mathematics Teacher 55 322–325.
  • National Research Council (1996). The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  • Thompson, W. C. and Schumann, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials–-The prosecutors fallacy and the defense attorneys fallacy. Law and Human Behavior 11 167–187.
  • Troyer, K., Gilroy, T. and Koeneman, B. (2001). A nine STR locus match between two apparent unrelated individuals using AmpFlSTR Profiler Plus$^{\mathrm{TM}}$ and COfiler$^{\mathrm{TM}}$. Proceedings of the Promega 12th International Symposium on Human Identification.
  • Weir, B. S. (1996). Genetic Data Analysis. II. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
  • Weir, B. S. (2004). Matching and partially-matching DNA profiles. J. Forensic Sciences 49 1009–1014.
  • Weir, B. S., Anderson, A. D. and Hepler, A. B. (2006). Genetic relatedness analysis: Modern data and new challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics 7 771–780.