On Qualitative Probabilities for Legal Reasoning about Evidence

A crucial aspect of evidential reasoning in crime investigation involves comparing the support that evidence provides for alternative hypotheses. Recent work in forensic statistics has shown how Bayesian Networks (BNs) can be employed for this purpose. However, the specification of BNs requires conditional probability tables describing the uncertain processes under evaluation. When these processes are poorly understood, it is necessary to rely on subjective probabilities provided by experts. Accurate probabilities of this type are normally hard to acquire from experts. Recent work in qualitative reasoning has developed methods to perform probabilistic reasoning using coarser representations. However, the latter types of approaches are too imprecise to compare the likelihood of alternative hypotheses. This paper examines this shortcoming of the qualitative approaches when applied to the aforementioned problem, and identifies and integrates techniques to refine them.