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

Norman Fenton

Norman Fenton contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceApplicationscs.CYMachine LearningMethodologystat.OTphysics.soc-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
14works
0followers
7topics
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

14 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
preprint2022arXiv

Statistical issues in Serial Killer Nurse cases

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Chaotic State of UK Drone Regulation

In December 2020 the law for drone pilots and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) use went into a transition phase in preparation for new EU international UAV regulation. That EU regulation comes into full effect as the transition periods defined in the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority Air Policy CAP722 expire during December 2022 (CAA, 2020). However, international homologation regulation will not address the patchwork of inconsistent drone use regulations that exist in the United Kingdom from the layering of local and subordinate authority byelaws over UK aviation law. We provide an extensive review of local authority regulation of drone use on public open and green spaces, finding that many local authorities are unaware of the issues being created through: (i) inappropriately couched or poorly framed byelaws; (ii) multiple byelaws covering the same area by virtue of overlapping jurisdictions; or (iii) the lack readily identifiable policies for drone use on public land. Overregulation, inconsistent regulation and regulatory disharmony are causing confusion for recreational drone enthusiasts such that it is never clear which public or crown-owned open and green spaces they are allowed to, or prohibited from, flying. While the government and local authorities might like them to, drones are not going away. Therefore, we conclude, the easiest way to ensure citizens stay within the bounds of drone law that is intended to ensure public safety, is to make that law comprehensible, consistent and easy to comply with.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Self-Driving Car: Crossroads at the Bleeding Edge of Artificial Intelligence and Law

Artificial intelligence (AI) features are increasingly being embedded in cars and are central to the operation of self-driving cars (SDC). There is little or no effort expended towards understanding and assessing the broad legal and regulatory impact of the decisions made by AI in cars. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to determine the perceived barriers, benefits and facilitating factors of SDC in order to help us understand the suitability and limitations of existing and proposed law and regulation. (1) existing and proposed laws are largely based on claimed benefits of SDV that are still mostly speculative and untested; (2) while publicly presented as issues of assigning blame and identifying who pays where the SDC is involved in an accident, the barriers broadly intersect with almost every area of society, laws and regulations; and (3) new law and regulation are most frequently identified as the primary factor for enabling SDC. Research on assessing the impact of AI in SDC needs to be broadened beyond negligence and liability to encompass barriers, benefits and facilitating factors identified in this paper. Results of this paper are significant in that they point to the need for deeper comprehension of the broad impact of all existing law and regulations on the introduction of SDC technology, with a focus on identifying only those areas truly requiring ongoing legislative attention.

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

A Comprehensive Scoping Review of Bayesian Networks in Healthcare: Past, Present and Future

No comprehensive review of Bayesian networks (BNs) in healthcare has been published in the past, making it difficult to organize the research contributions in the present and identify challenges and neglected areas that need to be addressed in the future. This unique and novel scoping review of BNs in healthcare provides an analytical framework for comprehensively characterizing the domain and its current state. The review shows that: (1) BNs in healthcare are not used to their full potential; (2) a generic BN development process is lacking; (3) limitations exists in the way BNs in healthcare are presented in the literature, which impacts understanding, consensus towards systematic methodologies, practice and adoption of BNs; and (4) a gap exists between having an accurate BN and a useful BN that impacts clinical practice. This review empowers researchers and clinicians with an analytical framework and findings that will enable understanding of the need to address the problems of restricted aims of BNs, ad hoc BN development methods, and the lack of BN adoption in practice. To map the way forward, the paper proposes future research directions and makes recommendations regarding BN development methods and adoption in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A note on 'Collider bias undermines our understanding of COVID-19 disease risk and severity' and how causal Bayesian networks both expose and resolve the problem

An important recent preprint by Griffith et al highlights how 'collider bias' in studies of COVID19 undermines our understanding of the disease risk and severity. This is typically caused by the data being restricted to people who have undergone COVID19 testing, among whom healthcare workers are overrepresented. For example, collider bias caused by smokers being underrepresented in the dataset may (at least partly) explain empirical results that suggest smoking reduces the risk of COVID19. We extend the work of Griffith et al making more explicit use of graphical causal models to interpret observed data. We show that their smoking example can be clarified and improved using Bayesian network models with realistic data and assumptions. We show that there is an even more fundamental problem for risk factors like 'stress' which, unlike smoking, is more rather than less prevalent among healthcare workers; in this case, because of a combination of collider bias from the biased dataset and the fact that 'healthcare worker' is a confounding variable, it is likely that studies will wrongly conclude that stress reduces rather than increases the risk of COVID19. Indeed, "being in close contact with COVID19 people" reduces the risk of COVID19. To avoid such potentially erroneous conclusions, any analysis of observational data must take account of the underlying causal structure including colliders and confounders. If analysts fail to do this explicitly then any conclusions they make about the effect of specific risk factors on COVID19 are likely to be flawed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Note on UK Covid19 death rates by religion: which groups are most at risk?

There has been great concern in the UK that people from the BAME (Black And Minority Ethnic) community have a far higher risk of dying from Covid19 than those of other ethnicities. However, the overall fatalities data from the Government's ONS (Office of National Statistics) most recent report on deaths by religion shows that Jews (very few of whom are classified as BAME) have a much higher risk than those of religions (Hindu, Sikh, Muslim) with predominantly BAME people. This apparently contradictory result is, according to the ONS statistical analysis, implicitly explained by age as the report claims that, when 'adjusted for age' Muslims have the highest fatality risk. However, the report fails to provide the raw data to support this. There are many factors other than just age that must be incorporated into any analysis of the observed data before making definitive conclusions about risk based on religion/ethnicity. We propose the need for a causal model for this. If we discount unknown genetic factors, then religion and ethnicity have NO impact at all on a person's Covid19 death risk once we know their age, underlying medical conditions, work/living conditions, and extent of social distancing.

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

Public Authorities as Defendants: Using Bayesian Networks to determine the Likelihood of Success for Negligence claims in the wake of Oakden

Several countries are currently investigating issues of neglect, poor quality care and abuse in the aged care sector. In most cases it is the State who license and monitor aged care providers, which frequently introduces a serious conflict of interest because the State also operate many of the facilities where our most vulnerable peoples are cared for. Where issues are raised with the standard of care being provided, the State are seen by many as a deep-pockets defendant and become the target of high-value lawsuits. This paper draws on cases and circumstances from one jurisdiction based on the English legal tradition, Australia, and proposes a Bayesian solution capable of determining probability for success for citizen plaintiffs who bring negligence claims against a public authority defendant. Use of a Bayesian network trained on case audit data shows that even when the plaintiff case meets all requirements for a successful negligence litigation, success is not often assured. Only in around one-fifth of these cases does the plaintiff succeed against a public authority as defendant.

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