\section{Overview}
This document traces through the developments of glass research according to the
timeline illustrated in Figure ~\ref{fig:timeline}.

\begin{figure}[here]
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{timeline/output.pdf}
\caption{A brief timeline showing major papers written by important contributors in research.}
\label{fig:timeline}
\end{figure}
\clearpage

\subsection{Lawson 1974}
	\emph{Numerical Correlation and Evaluation in the Comparison of Evidentiary Materials}\citet{Lawson73}
	
	Lawson mentions the use of emission spectroscopy as an identifying characteristic
	of glass samples. He makes use of ten automobile head lamp glass fragments as the
	basis of his theory.
	
	Lawson developed a technique for "Sorting the results or getting the 
	smallest numerical index so that the closest match of the parameters 
	involved can be easily evaluated" and "establish[ing] a threshold or 
	level of reproducibility of the particular technique and material 
	involved."
		
	This paper appeared to be promising, but the decision procedures created
	in this document were not further considered.
		
\subsection{Seheult 1978}
	\emph{On a Problem in Forensic Science}\citet{Seheult78}
	
	This paper builds upon Lindley and Evett's previous papers for using a Bayes
	approach in determining the likelihood that two glass samples are from the
	same source. In particular, Seheult defends Lindley's algorithm using 
	a Neyman-Pearson test.
	
	This paper is not exceptionally valuable to our research because no new
	decision procedures are provided.

\subsection{Grove 1980}
	\emph{Interpretation of Forensic Evidence Using a Likelihood Ratio}\citet{Grove80}
	
	Waiting for Pavan's paper.

\subsection{Evett 1984}
	\emph{A Quantitative Theory for Interpreting Transfer Evidence in Criminal Cases}\citet{Evett84}
	
	A general approach, based on a Bayesian inference, is presented for providing
	quantitative interpretation of scientific forensic evidence in cases where material
	is transferred during the commission of crime. An expression is derived 
	which has a potentially wide applicability in forensic casework and the
	principles of its use are illustrated by examples.
	
	Evett's paper is outside the scope of our project, but the use of likelihood
	ratios continues to be a recurring theme in Evett's work.

\subsection{Evett 1990}
	\emph{The Interpretation of Glass Evidence. A Practical Approach}\citet{Evett90}
	
	Evett's 1990 paper attempts to make use of a Bayesian approach even though
	there are still many considerations are crude.
	
	Evett's 1990 paper is used as the basis for his 1994 paper. There are
	graphs that appear in both of these papers, but they are discussed in
	more detail in Matt Bartenschlag's research summary of the paper.

\subsection{Evett 1994}
	\emph{Further Observations on Glass Evidence Interpretation}\citet{Evett94}
	
	Evett uses this paper as a continuation of his 1990 research paper,
	\emph{A Quantitative Theory for Interpreting Transfer Evidence in Criminal Cases}.
	The majority of this paper is focused on previous problems, but he introduces
	a new factor which strengthens or weakens the conclusions from his previous
	equations.
	
	This research paper, along with Evett's previous paper, was analyzed in
	depth in A \emph{Concise Summary of \emph{Further Observations on Glass 
	Evidence Interpretation}}. Significant insight was not gained from this
	research; it simply confirms that a suspect is more likely to be guilty
	if a significantly large number of matching glass fragments were recovered
	from his or her clothing. 
	
\subsection{Walsh 1994}
	\emph{A Practical example of the interpretation of glass evidence}\citet{Walsh94}
	
	The equation presented in this article is similar to one of Evett's. 
	The difference is that Walsh argues that instead of incorporating grouping 
	and matching, only grouping should be included. Walsh says this is because 
	match/non-match is really just an arbitrary line.

\subsection{Koons 1999}
	\emph{The Forensic Significance of Glass Composition and Refractive Index Measurements}\citet{Koons99}
	
	Koons examines qualities of glass including RI (at D line) and chemical
	composition to determine how accurately glass samples can be distinguished.
	
	By comparing all of the above attributes, it is extraordinarily 
	unlikely to find two unrelated pieces of glass that match – 
	between $10^{-5}$ and $10^{-13}$ (this would be the denominator in 
	the likelihood ratio.
	
\subsection{Koons 2002}
	\emph{Interpretation of Glass Composition Measurements: The Effects of Match Criteria on Discrimination Capability}\citet{Koons02}
