What happens when an algorithm is added to the work of an expert group? This study explores how algorithms pose a practical problem for experts. We study the introduction of a Probabilistic DNA Profiling (PDP) software into a forensics lab through interviews and court admissibility hearings. While meant to support experts' decision-making, in practice it has destabilized their authority. They respond to this destabilization by producing alternating and often conflicting accounts of the agency and significance of the software. The algorithm gets constructed alternately either as merely a tool or as indispensable statistical backing; the analysts' authority as either independent of the algorithm or reliant upon it to resolve conflict and create a final decision; and forensic expertise as resting either with the analysts or with the software. These tensions reflect the forensic 'culture of anticipation', specifically the experts' anticipation of ongoing litigation that destabilizes their control over the deployment and interpretation of expertise in the courtroom. The software highlights tensions between the analysts' supposed impartiality and their role in the courtroom, exposing legal and narrative implications of the changing nature of expertise and technology in the criminal legal system.

中文翻译：

---

“你的原告是我，还是软件？” 概率 DNA 分析中的模糊性和有争议的专业知识。

当算法被添加到专家组的工作中时会发生什么？这项研究探讨了算法如何为专家提出实际问题。我们通过访谈和法庭受理听证会研究了如何将概率 DNA 分析 (PDP) 软件引入法医实验室。虽然是为了支持专家的决策，但实际上却动摇了专家的权威。他们通过对软件的代理机构和重要性进行交替且经常相互冲突的描述来应对这种不稳定。该算法的构建要么仅仅作为一种工具，要么作为不可或缺的统计支持；分析师的权威要么独立于算法，要么依赖算法来解决冲突并做出最终决定；取证专业知识由分析师或软件负责。这些紧张关系反​​映了法医的“预期文化”，特别是专家对正在进行的诉讼的预期，这会动摇他们对法庭上专业知识的部署和解释的控制。该软件凸显了分析师所谓的公正性与他们在法庭上的角色之间的紧张关系，揭示了刑事法律体系中专业知识和技术性质变化的法律和叙事影响。