AVERs: an argument visualization tool for representing stories about evidence

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes an architecture for a sense-making system for crime investigation named AVERs (Argument Visualization for Evidential Reasoning based on stories). It is targeted at crime investigators who may use it to explain initially observed facts by drawing links between these facts and hypothesized events, and to connect the thus created stories to evidence through argumentation. AVERs draws on a combination of ideas from visualizing argumentation and anchored narratives theory.

REFERENCES

• 1: Austhink Rationale (www page). http://www.austhink.com/rationale, 2006.
• 2: S. T. Adams. Investigation of the "Convince Me" computer environment as a tool for critical argumentation about public policy issues. Journal of Interactive Learning Reseach, 14(3):263--283, 2003.
• 3: F. J. Bex, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij. Anchored narratives in reasoning about evidence. In T. M. van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pages 11--20, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. IOS Press.
• 4: F. J. Bex , H. Prakken , B. Verheij, Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 04-08, 2007, Stanford, California [doi>10.1145/1276318.1276320]
• 5: Carlos Chesñevar , Jarred McGinnis , Sanjay Modgil , Iyad Rahwan , Chris Reed , Guillermo Simari , Matthew South , Gerard Vreeswijk , Steven Willmott, Towards an argument interchange format, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.21 n.4, p.293-316, December 2006 [doi>10.1017/S0269888906001044]
• 6: J. Keppens and B. Schafer. Knowledge based crime scenario modelling. Expert Systems with Applications, 30:203--222, 2006.
• 7: Paul A. Kirschner , Simon J. Buckingham Shum , Chad S. Carr, Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, Springer-Verlag, London, 2003
• 8: C. A. Reed and G. W. A. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools, 14(3-4):961--980, 2004.
• 9: D. D. Suthers, A. Weiner, J. Connelly, and M. Paolucci. Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In AI-Ed 95, The 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 266--273, 1995.
• 10: S. W. van den Braak and G. A. W. Vreeswijk. AVER: Argument visualization for evidential reasoning. In T. M. van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pages 151--156, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. IOS Press.
• 11: Bart Verheij, Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, v.150 n.1-2, p.291-324, November 2003 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00107-3]
• 12: G. A. W. Vreeswijk. An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon, editors, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 144), pages 109--120, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. IOS Press.
• 13: W. A. Wagenaar, H. F. M. Crombag, and P. J. van Koppen. Anchored Narratives: Psychology of Proof in Criminal Law. St Martin's Press / Prentice-Hall, New York, NY, 1993.
• 14: D. N. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1996.