Timber Kerkvliet

Timber Kerkvliet, Ronald Meester

We first discuss certain problems with the classical probabilistic approach for assessing forensic evidence, in particular its inability to distinguish between lack of belief and disbelief, and its inability to model complete ignorance within a given population. We then discuss Shafer belief functions, a generalization of probability distributions, which can deal with both these objections. We use a calculus of belief functions which does not use the much criticized Dempster rule of combination, but only the very natural Dempster-Shafer conditioning. We then apply this calculus to some classical forensic problems like the various island problems and the problem of parental identification. If we impose no prior knowledge apart from assuming that the culprit or parent belongs to a given population (something which is possible in our setting), then our answers differ from the classical ones when uniform or other priors are imposed. We can actually retrieve the classical answers by imposing the relevant priors, so our setup can and should be interpreted as a generalization of the classical methodology, allowing more flexibility. We show how our calculus can be used to develop an analogue of Bayes' rule, with belief functions instead of classical probabilities. We also discuss consequences of our theory for legal practice.

Timber Kerkvliet, Ronald Meester

We first show that there are practical situations in for instance forensic and gambling settings, in which applying classical probability theory, that is, based on the axioms of Kolmogorov, is problematic. We then introduce and discuss Shafer belief functions. Technically, Shafer belief functions generalize probability distributions. Philosophically, they pertain to individual or shared knowledge of facts, rather than to facts themselves, and therefore can be interpreted as generalizing epistemic probability, that is, probability theory interpreted epistemologically. Belief functions are more flexible and better suited to deal with certain types of uncertainty than classical probability distributions. We develop a new calculus for belief functions which does not use the much criticized Dempster's rule of combination, by generalizing the classical notions of conditioning and independence in a natural and uncontroversial way. Using this calculus, we explain our rejection of Dempster's rule in detail. We apply the new theory to a number of examples, including a gambling example and an example in a forensic setting. We prove a law of large numbers for belief functions and offer a betting interpretation similar to the Dutch Book Theorem for probability distributions.