 On the likelihood ratio interpretation, relevance depends on the choice of the competing hypotheses. A piece of evidence is relevant—in relation to a pair of hypotheses \(H\) and \(H'\)—provided the likelihood ratio \(LR(E, H, H')\) is different from one and irrelevant otherwise. For example, the bloody knife found in the suspect’s home is relevant evidence in favor of the prosecutor’s hypothesis because we think it is far more likely to find such evidence if the suspect committed the crime (prosecutor’s hypothesis) than if he didn’t (defense hypothesis) (Finkelstein 2009). In general, for values greater than one, \(LR(E, H, H')&gt;1\), the evidence supports the prosecutor’s or plaintiff’s hypothesis \(H\), and for values below one, \(LR(E, H, H')&lt;1\), the evidence supports the defense’s hypothesis \(H'\). If the evidence is equally likely under either hypothesis, \(LR(E, H, H')=1\), the evidence is irrelevant.