Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence

In the present paper, we provide a formalised version of a merged argumentative and story-based approach towards the analysis of evidence. As an application, we are able to show how our approach sheds new light on inference to the best explanation with case evidence. More specifically, it will be clarified how the events in a case story that are considered to be proven abductively explain the otherwise unproven events of the case story. We compare our approach with existing AI work on modelling legal reasoning with evidence.

[1]  P. J. van Koppen,et al.  Dubieuze zaken: De psychologie van strafrechtelijk bewijs , 2006 .

[2]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures , 1978 .

[3]  David Poole,et al.  Learning, Bayesian Probability, Graphical Models, and Abduction , 2000 .

[4]  H. Crombag,et al.  Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence , 1994 .

[5]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[6]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Reasoning with Rules , 1997 .

[7]  P. Thagard,et al.  Abductive Reasoning: Logic, Visual Thinking, and Coherence , 1997 .

[8]  David A. Schum,et al.  A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation , 2005 .

[9]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[10]  J. Hage.  Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic , 1996 .

[11]  J.F.A.K. van Benthem,et al.  Logic and Scientific Methods , 1997 .

[12]  Peter A. Flach,et al.  Abduction and induction: essays on their relation and integration , 2000 .

[13]  William Twining,et al.  Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays , 1990 .

[14]  N. Pennington,et al.  The story model for juror decision making , 1993 .

[15]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Embracing Causality in Default Reasoning , 1988, Artif. Intell..

[16]  J. Pollock.  Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person , 1995 .

[17]  Jaap Hage,et al.  The law as a dynamic interconnected system of states of affairs: a legal top ontology , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  Bart Verheij,et al.  About the logical relations between cases and rules , 2008, JURIX.

[19]  Bart Verheij.  Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers , 2005 .

[20]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Anchored Narratives in Reasoning about Evidence , 2006, JURIX.

[21]  P. Thagard,et al.  Testimony, Credibility, and Explanatory Coherence , 2005 .

[22]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[23]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  AVER: Argument Visualization for Evidential Reasoning , 2006, JURIX.

[25]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[26]  P. J. van Koppen,et al.  Rechercheportret: Over dilemma's in de opsporing. , 2004 .

[27]  John Henry Wigmore,et al.  The Principles of Judicial Proof: Or the Process of Proof as Given by Logic, Psychology and General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials , 1931 .

[28]  Stephen E. Toulmin,et al.  The Uses of Argument, Updated Edition , 2008 .

[29]  Peter Lucas,et al.  Symbolic diagnosis and its formalisation , 1997, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[30]  Jeroen Keppens,et al.  Knowledge based crime scenario modelling , 2006, Expert Syst. Appl..