Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence

ABSTRACT

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.

REFERENCES

• 1: Anderson, T. J., Schum, D. A., and Twining, W. L. (2005) Analysis of Evidence, 2^nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• 2: Floris Bex , Henry Prakken , Chris Reed , Douglas Walton, Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.11 n.2-3, p.125-165, January 2003 [doi>10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a]
• 3: Bex, F. J., Prakken, H. and Verheij, B. (2006) Anchored Narratives in Reasoning about Evidence. In T. M. van Engers (ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pp. 11--20, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
• 4: Van den Braak, S. W., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2006), AVER: Argument visualization for evidential reasoning. In T. M. van Engers (ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pp. 151, 156, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
• 5: Crombag, H. F. M., Wagenaar, W. A., and Van Koppen, P. J. (1994) Dubieuze Zaken: de psychologie van strafrechtelijk bewijs, 2^nd edition, Contact, Amsterdam. English edition: Wagenaar, W. A., Koppen, P. J. van & Crombag, H. F. M. (1993), Anchored Narratives. The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• 6: Phan Minh Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, v.77 n.2, p.321-357, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
• 7: Hage, J. C. (1997). Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
• 8: Jaap Hage , Bart Verheij, The law as a dynamic interconnected system of states of affairs: a legal top ontology, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.51 n.6, p.1043-1077, Dec. 1999 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.1999.0297]
• 9: Keppens, J. and Schafer, B. (2006) Knowledge based crime scenario modelling. Expert Systems with Applications 30: pp. 203--222.
• 10: Peter Lucas, Symbolic diagnosis and its formalisation, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.12 n.2, p.109-146, June 1997 [doi>10.1017/S0269888997002026]
• 11: J. Pearl, Embracing causality in fault reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, v.35 n.2, p.259-271, June 1988 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(88)90015-X]
• 12: Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. (1993) The story model for juror decision making. In Hastie, R. (eds.), Inside the Juror, The Psychology of Juror Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• 13: John L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to Build a Person, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995
• 14: Poole, D. (1998) Learning, Bayesian Probability, Graphical Models, and Abduction, In Flach, P. and Kakas, A.(eds), Abduction and Induction: essays on their relation and integration, Kluwer, 1998.
• 15: de Poot, C. J., Bokhorst, R. J., Van Koppen, P. J., and Muller, E. R. (2004), Rechercheportret - Over dilemma's in de opsporing (Investigation portrait - about dilemmas in investigation), Kluwer, Alphen a.d. Rijn.
• 16: Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk, G. (2002) Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, second edition, Vol 4, pp. 219--318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht etc.
• 17: Schank, R. C., and Abelson, R. P. (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: an Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
• 18: Thagard, P. (2005) Testimony, Credibility and Explanatory Coherence. Erkenntnis 63, pp. 295--316.
• 19: Thagard, P. and Shelley, C. P. (1997). Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence. In M.-L. Dalla Chiara et al. (Eds.), Logic and scientific methods. pp. 413--427, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
• 20: Tillers, P. and Schum, D. A. (1991) A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation. University of California Davis Law Review 24, pp. 931--1012.
• 21: Toulmin, S. E. (2003) The Uses of Argument, Updated Edition, in 1958), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• 22: Twining, W. L. (1994) Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL
• 23: Bart Verheij, Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.11 n.2-3, p.167-195, January 2003 [doi>10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36]
• 24: Verheij, B. (2005) Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague.
• 25: Walton, D. N. (1996) Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.
• 26: Wigmore, J. H. (1931) The Principles of Judicial Proof or the Process of Proof as Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 2nd edition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
abductive reasoning, argumentation, inference to the best explanation, legal evidence, stories