Linguistic Bayesian Networks for reasoning with subjective probabilities in forensic statistics

Recent work in forensic statistics has shown how Bayesian Networks (BNs) can be used to infer the probability of defence and prosecution statements based on forensic evidence. This is an important development as it helps to quantify the meaning of forensic expert testimony during court proceedings, for example, that there is "strong support" for the defence or prosecution position. Due to the lack of experimental data, inferred probabilities often rely on subjective probabilities provided by experts. Because these are based on informed guesses, it is very difficult to express them accurately with precise numbers. Yet, conventional BNs can only employ probabilities expressed as real numbers. To address this issue, this paper presents a novel extension of probability theory. This allow the expression of subjective probabilities as fuzzy numbers, which more faithfully reflect expert opinion. By means of practical a example, it will be shown that the accurate representation of this lack of precision in reasoning with subjective probabilities has important implications for the overall result.

[1]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems - networks of plausible inference , 1991, Morgan Kaufmann series in representation and reasoning.

[2]  D. Budescu,et al.  Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases , 1985 .

[3]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy probabilities , 1996, Inf. Process. Manag..

[4]  I. Evett,et al.  A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .

[5]  J A Lambert,et al.  The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[6]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems , 1988 .

[7]  Dominic Welsh,et al.  Probability: An Introduction , 1986 .

[8]  Qiang Shen,et al.  From approximative to descriptive fuzzy classifiers , 2002, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst..

[9]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  Case pre-assessment and review in a two-way transfer case , 1999 .

[10]  Alf C. Zimmer,et al.  What Uncertainty Judgments Can Tell About the Underlying Subjective Probabilities , 1985, UAI.

[11]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[12]  I. Evett,et al.  More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[13]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Stochastic sensitivity analysis using fuzzy influence diagrams , 2013, UAI.

[14]  Peter Donnelly,et al.  Inference in Forensic Identification , 1995 .

[15]  Alf Zimmer,et al.  Verbal Vs. Numerical Processing of Subjective Probabilities , 1983 .

[16]  Amnon Rapoport,et al.  Measuring the Vague Meanings of Probability Terms , 1986 .

[17]  Qiang Shen,et al.  Towards a linguistic probability theory , 2002, 2002 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence. 2002 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems. FUZZ-IEEE'02. Proceedings (Cat. No.02CH37291).

[18]  Paolo Garbolino,et al.  A graphical model for the evaluation of cross-transfer evidence in DNA profiles. , 2003, Theoretical population biology.

[19]  J A Lambert,et al.  A model for case assessment and interpretation. , 1998, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.