-
Statistical issues in Serial Killer Nurse cases
Authors:
Richard D. Gill,
Norman Fenton,
David Lagnado
Abstract:
We study statistical aspects of the case of the British nurse Ben Geen, convicted of 2 counts of murder and 15 of grievous bodily harm following events at Horton General Hospital (in the town of Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK) during December 2013-February 2014. We draw attention to parallels with the cases of nurses Lucia de Berk (the Netherlands) and Daniela Poggiali (Italy), in both of which an initi…
▽ More
We study statistical aspects of the case of the British nurse Ben Geen, convicted of 2 counts of murder and 15 of grievous bodily harm following events at Horton General Hospital (in the town of Banbury, Oxfordshire, UK) during December 2013-February 2014. We draw attention to parallels with the cases of nurses Lucia de Berk (the Netherlands) and Daniela Poggiali (Italy), in both of which an initial conviction for multiple murders of patients was overturned after reopening of the case. We pay most attention to the investigative processes by which data, and not just statistical data, is generated; namely, the identification of past cases in which the nurse under suspicion might have been involved. We argue that the investigation and prosecution of such cases is vulnerable to many cognitive biases and errors of reasoning about uncertainty, complicated by the fact that fact-finders have to determine not only whether a particular person was guilty of certain crimes, but whether any crimes were committed by anybody at all. The paper includes some new statistical findings on the Ben Geen case and suggests further avenues for investigation. The experiences recounted here have contributed to the writing of the hand-book Green et al. (2022), Healthcare Serial Killer or Coincidence? Statistical Issues in Investigation of Suspected Medical Misconduct, commissioned by the Royal Statistical Society, Statistics and the Law section. Submitted to MDPI Laws. This version: 5 August, 2022.
△ Less
Submitted 23 August, 2022; v1 submitted 24 May, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
BARD: A structured technique for group elicitation of Bayesian networks to support analytic reasoning
Authors:
Ann E. Nicholson,
Kevin B. Korb,
Erik P. Nyberg,
Michael Wybrow,
Ingrid Zukerman,
Steven Mascaro,
Shreshth Thakur,
Abraham Oshni Alvandi,
Jeff Riley,
Ross Pearson,
Shane Morris,
Matthieu Herrmann,
A. K. M. Azad,
Fergus Bolger,
Ulrike Hahn,
David Lagnado
Abstract:
In many complex, real-world situations, problem solving and decision making require effective reasoning about causation and uncertainty. However, human reasoning in these cases is prone to confusion and error. Bayesian networks (BNs) are an artificial intelligence technology that models uncertain situations, supporting probabilistic and causal reasoning and decision making. However, to date, BN me…
▽ More
In many complex, real-world situations, problem solving and decision making require effective reasoning about causation and uncertainty. However, human reasoning in these cases is prone to confusion and error. Bayesian networks (BNs) are an artificial intelligence technology that models uncertain situations, supporting probabilistic and causal reasoning and decision making. However, to date, BN methodologies and software require significant upfront training, do not provide much guidance on the model building process, and do not support collaboratively building BNs. BARD (Bayesian ARgumentation via Delphi) is both a methodology and an expert system that utilises (1) BNs as the underlying structured representations for better argument analysis, (2) a multi-user web-based software platform and Delphi-style social processes to assist with collaboration, and (3) short, high-quality e-courses on demand, a highly structured process to guide BN construction, and a variety of helpful tools to assist in building and reasoning with BNs, including an automated explanation tool to assist effective report writing. The result is an end-to-end online platform, with associated online training, for groups without prior BN expertise to understand and analyse a problem, build a model of its underlying probabilistic causal structure, validate and reason with the causal model, and use it to produce a written analytic report. Initial experimental results demonstrate that BARD aids in problem solving, reasoning and collaboration.
△ Less
Submitted 2 March, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
-
Modelling Competing Legal Arguments using Bayesian Model Comparison and Averaging
Authors:
Martin Neil,
Norman Fenton,
David Lagnado,
Richard D. Gill
Abstract:
Bayesian models of legal arguments generally aim to produce a single integrated model, combining each of the legal arguments under consideration. This combined approach implicitly assumes that variables and their relationships can be represented without any contradiction or misalignment, and in a way that makes sense with respect to the competing argument narratives. This paper describes a novel a…
▽ More
Bayesian models of legal arguments generally aim to produce a single integrated model, combining each of the legal arguments under consideration. This combined approach implicitly assumes that variables and their relationships can be represented without any contradiction or misalignment, and in a way that makes sense with respect to the competing argument narratives. This paper describes a novel approach to compare and 'average' Bayesian models of legal arguments that have been built independently and with no attempt to make them consistent in terms of variables, causal assumptions or parametrisation. The approach involves assessing whether competing models of legal arguments are explained or predict facts uncovered before or during the trial process. Those models that are more heavily disconfirmed by the facts are given lower weight, as model plausibility measures, in the Bayesian model comparison and averaging framework adopted. In this way a plurality of arguments is allowed yet a single judgement based on all arguments is possible and rational.
△ Less
Submitted 30 January, 2020; v1 submitted 7 March, 2019;
originally announced March 2019.
-
Formalizing Neurath's Ship: Approximate Algorithms for Online Causal Learning
Authors:
Neil R. Bramley,
Peter Dayan,
Thomas L. Griffiths,
David A. Lagnado
Abstract:
Higher-level cognition depends on the ability to learn models of the world. We can characterize this at the computational level as a structure-learning problem with the goal of best identifying the prevailing causal relationships among a set of relata. However, the computational cost of performing exact Bayesian inference over causal models grows rapidly as the number of relata increases. This imp…
▽ More
Higher-level cognition depends on the ability to learn models of the world. We can characterize this at the computational level as a structure-learning problem with the goal of best identifying the prevailing causal relationships among a set of relata. However, the computational cost of performing exact Bayesian inference over causal models grows rapidly as the number of relata increases. This implies that the cognitive processes underlying causal learning must be substantially approximate. A powerful class of approximations that focuses on the sequential absorption of successive inputs is captured by the Neurath's ship metaphor in philosophy of science, where theory change is cast as a stochastic and gradual process shaped as much by people's limited willingness to abandon their current theory when considering alternatives as by the ground truth they hope to approach. Inspired by this metaphor and by algorithms for approximating Bayesian inference in machine learning, we propose an algorithmic-level model of causal structure learning under which learners represent only a single global hypothesis that they update locally as they gather evidence. We propose a related scheme for understanding how, under these limitations, learners choose informative interventions that manipulate the causal system to help elucidate its workings. We find support for our approach in the analysis of four experiments.
△ Less
Submitted 26 May, 2017; v1 submitted 14 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
