BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Martin Neil

Martin Neil contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceApplicationsMachine Learningcs.CYMethodologystat.OT

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Product safety idioms: a method for building causal Bayesian networks for product safety and risk assessment

Idioms are small, reusable Bayesian network (BN) fragments that represent generic types of uncertain reasoning. This paper shows how idioms can be used to build causal BNs for product safety and risk assessment that use a combination of data and knowledge. We show that the specific product safety idioms that we introduce are sufficient to build full BN models to evaluate safety and risk for a wide range of products. The resulting models can be used by safety regulators and product manufacturers even when there are limited (or no) product testing data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

How do some Bayesian Network machine learned graphs compare to causal knowledge?

The graph of a Bayesian Network (BN) can be machine learned, determined by causal knowledge, or a combination of both. In disciplines like bioinformatics, applying BN structure learning algorithms can reveal new insights that would otherwise remain unknown. However, these algorithms are less effective when the input data are limited in terms of sample size, which is often the case when working with real data. This paper focuses on purely machine learned and purely knowledge-based BNs and investigates their differences in terms of graphical structure and how well the implied statistical models explain the data. The tests are based on four previous case studies whose BN structure was determined by domain knowledge. Using various metrics, we compare the knowledge-based graphs to the machine learned graphs generated from various algorithms implemented in TETRAD spanning all three classes of learning. The results show that, while the algorithms produce graphs with much higher model selection score, the knowledge-based graphs are more accurate predictors of variables of interest. Maximising score fitting is ineffective in the presence of limited sample size because the fitting becomes increasingly distorted with limited data, guiding algorithms towards graphical patterns that share higher fitting scores and yet deviate considerably from the true graph. This highlights the value of causal knowledge in these cases, as well as the need for more appropriate fitting scores suitable for limited data. Lastly, the experiments also provide new evidence that support the notion that results from simulated data tell us little about actual real-world performance.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Bluetooth Smartphone Apps: Are they the most private and effective solution for COVID-19 contact tracing?

Many digital solutions mainly involving Bluetooth technology are being proposed for Contact Tracing Apps (CTA) to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Concerns have been raised regarding privacy, consent, uptake required in a given population, and the degree to which use of CTAs can impact individual behaviours. However, very few groups have taken a holistic approach and presented a combined solution. None has presented their CTA in such a way as to ensure that even the most suggestible member of our community does not become complacent and assume that CTA operates as an invisible shield, making us and our families impenetrable or immune to the disease. We propose to build on some of the digital solutions already under development that, with addition of a Bayesian model that predicts likelihood for infection supplemented by traditional symptom and contact tracing, that can enable us to reach 90% of a population. When combined with an effective communication strategy and social distancing, we believe solutions like the one proposed here can have a very beneficial effect on containing the spread of this pandemic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Medical idioms for clinical Bayesian network development

Bayesian Networks (BNs) are graphical probabilistic models that have proven popular in medical applications. While numerous medical BNs have been published, most are presented fait accompli without explanation of how the network structure was developed or justification of why it represents the correct structure for the given medical application. This means that the process of building medical BNs from experts is typically ad hoc and offers little opportunity for methodological improvement. This paper proposes generally applicable and reusable medical reasoning patterns to aid those developing medical BNs. The proposed method complements and extends the idiom-based approach introduced by Neil, Fenton, and Nielsen in 2000. We propose instances of their generic idioms that are specific to medical BNs. We refer to the proposed medical reasoning patterns as medical idioms. In addition, we extend the use of idioms to represent interventional and counterfactual reasoning. We believe that the proposed medical idioms are logical reasoning patterns that can be combined, reused and applied generically to help develop medical BNs. All proposed medical idioms have been illustrated using medical examples on coronary artery disease. The method has also been applied to other ongoing BNs being developed with medical experts. Finally, we show that applying the proposed medical idioms to published BN models results in models with a clearer structure.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Modelling Competing Legal Arguments using Bayesian Model Comparison and Averaging

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the limitations of probabilistic claims about the probative value of mixed DNA profile evidence

The likelihood ratio (LR) is a commonly used measure for determining the strength of forensic match evidence. When a forensic expert determines a high LR for DNA found at a crime scene matching the DNA profile of a suspect they typically report that 'this provides strong support for the prosecution hypothesis that the DNA comes from the suspect'. However, even with a high LR, the evidence might not support the prosecution hypothesis if the defence hypothesis used to determine the LR is not the negation of the prosecution hypothesis (such as when the alternative is 'DNA comes from a person unrelated to the defendant' instead of 'DNA does not come from the suspect'). For DNA mixture profiles, especially low template DNA (LTDNA), the value of a high LR for a 'match' - typically computed from probabilistic genotyping software - can be especially questionable. But this is not just because of the use of non-exhaustive hypotheses in such cases. In contrast to single profile DNA 'matches', where the only residual uncertainty is whether a person other than the suspect has the same matching DNA profile, it is possible for all the genotypes of the suspect's DNA profile to appear at each locus of a DNA mixture, even though none of the contributors has that DNA profile. In fact, in the absence of other evidence, we show it is possible to have a very high LR for the hypothesis 'suspect is included in the mixture' even though the posterior probability that the suspect is included is very low. Yet, in such cases a forensic expert will generally still report a high LR as 'strong support for the suspect being a contributor'. Our observations suggest that, in certain circumstances, the use of the LR may have led lawyers and jurors into grossly overestimating the probative value of a LTDNA mixed profile 'match'

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Product risk assessment: a Bayesian network approach

Product risk assessment is the overall process of determining whether a product, which could be anything from a type of washing machine to a type of teddy bear, is judged safe for consumers to use. There are several methods used for product risk assessment, including RAPEX, which is the primary method used by regulators in the UK and EU. However, despite its widespread use, we identify several limitations of RAPEX including a limited approach to handling uncertainty and the inability to incorporate causal explanations for using and interpreting test data. In contrast, Bayesian Networks (BNs) are a rigorous, normative method for modelling uncertainty and causality which are already used for risk assessment in domains such as medicine and finance, as well as critical systems generally. This article proposes a BN model that provides an improved systematic method for product risk assessment that resolves the identified limitations with RAPEX. We use our proposed method to demonstrate risk assessments for a teddy bear and a new uncertified kettle for which there is no testing data and the number of product instances is unknown. We show that, while we can replicate the results of the RAPEX method, the BN approach is more powerful and flexible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The role of collider bias in understanding statistics on racially biased policing

Contradictory conclusions have been made about whether unarmed blacks are more likely to be shot by police than unarmed whites using the same data. The problem is that, by relying only on data of 'police encounters', there is the possibility that genuine bias can be hidden. We provide a causal Bayesian network model to explain this bias, which is called collider bias or Berkson's paradox, and show how the different conclusions arise from the same model and data. We also show that causal Bayesian networks provide the ideal formalism for considering alternative hypotheses and explanations of bias.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access