A method for explaining Bayesian networks for legal evidence with scenarios

In a criminal trial, a judge or jury needs to reason about what happened based on the available evidence, often including statistical evidence. While a probabilistic approach is suitable for analysing the statistical evidence, a judge or jury may be more inclined to use a narrative or argumentative approach when considering the case as a whole. In this paper we propose a combination of two approaches, combining Bayesian networks with scenarios. Whereas a Bayesian network is a popular tool for analysing parts of a case, constructing and understanding a network for an entire case is not straightforward. We propose an explanation method for understanding a Bayesian network in terms of scenarios. This method builds on a previously proposed construction method, which we slightly adapt with the use of scenario schemes for the purpose of explaining. The resulting structure is explained in terms of scenarios, scenario quality and evidential support. A probabilistic interpretation of scenario quality is provided using the concept of scenario schemes. Finally, the method is evaluated by means of a case study.

[1]  D. Schum,et al.  A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence , 1996 .

[2]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Explaining 'Explaining Away' , 1993, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[3]  Finn V. Jensen,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs , 2001, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[4]  Bart Verheij,et al.  To Catch a Thief With and Without Numbers: Arguments, Scenarios and Probabilities in Evidential Reasoning. , 2014 .

[5]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning , 2016 .

[6]  M. Feldman,et al.  Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgment in American Culture , 1981 .

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

[8]  Anne S. Hsu,et al.  When 'neutral' evidence still has probative value (with implications from the Barry George Case). , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

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

[10]  M. Henrion,et al.  Using scenarios to explain probabilistic inference , 1990 .

[11]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Modelling mutually exclusive causes in Bayesian networks , 2011 .

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

[13]  N. Fenton.  A General Structure for Legal Arguments Using Bayesian Networks , 2010 .

[14]  Carmen Lacave,et al.  A review of explanation methods for Bayesian networks , 2002, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[15]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Building Bayesian networks for legal evidence with narratives: a case study evaluation , 2014, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[16]  Jeroen Keppens.  Argument diagram extraction from evidential Bayesian networks , 2012, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[17]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Extracting Legal Arguments from Forensic Bayesian Networks , 2014, JURIX.

[18]  Floris Bex,et al.  Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence - A Formal Hybrid Theory , 2011, Law and philosophy library.

[19]  Ricky Ansell,et al.  Scale of conclusions for the value of evidence , 2012 .

[20]  David J. Balding,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science , 2011 .

[21]  A. Philip Dawid,et al.  Beware of the DAG! , 2008, NIPS Causality: Objectives and Assessment.

[22]  Norman Fenton,et al.  Avoiding probabilistic reasoning fallacies in legal practice using Bayesian networks , 2011 .

[23]  Amanda B. Hepler,et al.  Object-Oriented Graphical Representations of Complex Patterns of Evidence , 2007 .

[24]  Sheila Willis,et al.  Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion Association of Forensic Science Providers. , 2010, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[25]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Demonstration of a structure-guided approach to capturing bayesian reasoning about legal evidence in argumentation , 2015, ICAIL.

[26]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Representing the Quality of Crime Scenarios in a Bayesian Network , 2015, JURIX.

[27]  Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. , 2009, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[28]  David A. Lagnado,et al.  A General Structure for Legal Arguments About Evidence Using Bayesian Networks , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[29]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A structure-guided approach to capturing bayesian reasoning about legal evidence in argumentation , 2015, ICAIL.

[30]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Constructing and understanding Bayesian networks for legal evidence with scenario schemes , 2015, ICAIL.

[31]  Silja Renooij,et al.  Probability elicitation for belief networks: issues to consider , 2001, The Knowledge Engineering Review.