I was glad to see that all of the misguided assertions in the first few paragraphs of the article at least had a purpose, which apparently is the sales of a product. There are a number of flaws readily apparent to the experienced forensic artist here. The most glaring one is that the system or its operator select faces and ask the witness to choose from among them rather than asking the witness to describe something that is already in their memory. I would think that it might force a witness into settling for something that is close, rather than constructing an image that is accurate. The "academics" who conducted this study may have found it relatively easy to have their participants achieve a likeness of a celebrity whose face is frequently seen in the media, but perhaps they should have made the attempt to achieve the same results with a subject who is seen in a fleeting moment under a situation of stress. My years in law enforcement as an investigator have demonstrated that the two situations are entirely different.

I acknowledge that software such as this has some potential value if used by a person trained in the interview of witnesses or victims of crime, but to present it in this manner is irresponsible. I find the one-sidedness of the article disturbing, and I find the likeness they achieved, even of these well known faces, to be of little value. Perhaps you should ask readers to guess at the identities of the composites or, as you call them, caricatures, without revealing the photos of the celebs.