In a recent incident in Florida, a police officer was fired due to accusations of sexual assault. In an interview, the chief of police said that the officer would not be charged, because there was "a preponderence of evidence, but not probable cause."
I see that preponderence of evidence is defined as "greater than 50% chance that the claim is true" (or "more likely than not"). It's frequently brought up as a less rigorous standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, just from the language, I would think that probable cause would be less rigorous than a preponderence of evidence. This intuition seems to be corroborated by this article from Duke:
Preponderance of the evidence requires a finding of more likely than not, whereas probable cause is a lower standard that requires reasonable grounds to believe.
How can one have a preponderence of evidence, but not probable cause?