A Complexity Based Model for Quantifying Forensic Evidential Probabilities

An operational complexity model (OCM) is proposed to enable the complexity of both the cognitive and the computational components of a process to be determined. From the complexity of formation of a set of traces via a specified route a measure of the probability of that route can be determined. By determining the complexities of alternative routes leading to the formation of the same set of traces, the odds ratio indicating the relative plausibility of the alternative routes can be found. An illustrative application to a BitTorrent piracy case is presented, and the results obtained suggest that the OCM is capable of providing a realistic estimate of the odds ratio for two competing hypotheses. It is also demonstrated that the OCM can be straightforwardly refined to encompass a variety of circumstances.

Towards Qualitative Approaches to Bayesian Evidential Reasoning

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.

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.