Literature DB >> 28063592

The consequences of understanding expert probability reporting as a decision.

A Biedermann1, S Bozza2, F Taroni3, C Aitken4.   

Abstract

In this paper we reiterate that the personalist interpretation of probability is inevitable and as least as informed as any other allegedly more 'objective' definition of probability. We also argue that the problem faced by forensic scientists, the reporting on imperfect personal knowledge, in terms of probabilities, can be reconstructed as a decision problem. Tackling this problem through a rigorous decision theoretic analysis provides further argument in support of the view that optimal probability reporting is in terms of single numbers, not intervals.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Decision theory; Probability elicitation; Probability reporting; Scoring rule

Year:  2016        PMID: 28063592     DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Justice        ISSN: 1355-0306            Impact factor:   2.124


  3 in total

1.  Digital evidence exceptionalism? A review and discussion of conceptual hurdles in digital evidence transformation.

Authors:  Alex Biedermann; Kyriakos N Kotsoglou
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  The strange persistence of (source) "identification" claims in forensic literature through descriptivism, diagnosticism and machinism.

Authors:  Alex Biedermann
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2022-03-02

3.  The Limits of Bayesian Thinking in Court.

Authors:  Ronald Meester
Journal:  Top Cogn Sci       Date:  2019-10-31
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.