Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
C Aitken, F Taroni, P Garbolino (2003)
A graphical model for the evaluation of cross-transfer evidence in DNA profilesTheor Popul Biol, 63
M Druzdzel, L Gaag (2000)
Building probabilistic networks: where do the numbers come from?IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 12
D Walton (2005)
Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law
J Mortera, A Dawid, S Lauritzen (2003)
Probabilistic expert systems for dna mixture profilingTheor Popul Biol, 63
F Bex, P Koppen, H Prakken, B Verheij (2010)
A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidenceArtif Intell Law, 18
D Corfield, J Williamson (2001)
Foundations of Bayesianism
G Davis (2003)
Bayesian reconstruction of traffic accidentsLaw Probab Risk, 2
D Schum (1994)
The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning
J Keppens, Q Shen, C Price (2011)
Compositional bayesian modelling for computation of evidence collection strategiesAppl Intell, 35
A Biedermann, F Taroni, O Delemont, C Semadeni, A Davison (2005)
The evaluation of evidence in the forensic investigation of fire incidents. part ii. practical examples of the use of bayesian networksForensic Sci Int, 147
J Wigmore (1913)
The principles of judicial proof
P Dung (1995)
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person gamesArtif Intell, 77
M Wellman, M Henrion (1993)
Explaining "explaining away"IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 15
L Campos, J Gámez, S Moral (2001)
Simplifying explanations in bayesian belief networksInt J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst, 9
A Dawid, J Mortera, P Vicard (2007)
Object-oriented bayesian networks for complex forensic DNA profiling problemsForensic Sci Int, 169
I Evett, G Jackson, J Lambert, S McCrossan (2000)
The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statementsSci Justice, 40
T Bench-Capon, P Dunne (2007)
Argumentation in artificial intelligenceArtif Intell, 171
T Gordon, H Prakken, D Walton (2007)
The carneades model of argument and burden of proofArtif Intell, 171
G Governatori, M Maher, G Antoniou, D Billington (2004)
Argumentation semantics for defeasible logicJ Log Comput, 14
C Reed, D Walton, F Macagno (2007)
Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligenceKnowl Eng Rev, 22
J Keppens, B Schafer (2006)
Knowledge based crime scenario modellingExpert Syst Appl, 30
S Thomas (1986)
Practical reasoning in natural language
S. Toulmin (1958)
The uses of argument
C Lacave, F Díez (2002)
A review of explanation methods for Bayesian networksKnowl Eng Rev, 17
R Yanal (1991)
Dependent and independent reasonsInformal Log, 13
J Buckleton, C Triggs, C Champod (2006)
An extended likelihood ratio framework for interpreting evidenceSci Justice, 46
J Pearl (1988)
Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference
J Halpern (2003)
Reasoning about uncertainty
R Cook, I Evett, G Jackson, P Jones, J Lambert (1998)
A model for case assessment and interpretationSci Justice, 38
D Conway (1991)
On the distinction between convergent and linked argumentsInformal Log, 13
A Hepler, P Dawid, V Leucari (2007)
Object-oriented graphical representations of complex patterns of evidenceLaw Probab Risk, 6
Bayesian networks (BN) and argumentation diagrams (AD) are two predominant approaches to legal evidential reasoning, that are often treated as alternatives to one another. This paper argues that they are, instead, complimentary and proposes the beginnings of a method to employ them in such a manner. The Bayesian approach tends to be used as a means to analyse the findings of forensic scientists. As such, it constitutes a means to perform evidential reasoning. The design of Bayesian networks that accurately and comprehensively represent the relationships between investigative hypotheses and evidence remains difficult and sometimes contentious, however. Argumentation diagrams are representations of reasoning, and are used as a means to scrutinise reasoning (among other applications). In evidential reasoning, they tend to be used to represent and scrutinise the way humans reason about evidence. This paper examines how argumentation diagrams can be used to scrutinise Bayesian evidential reasoning by developing a method to extract argument diagrams from BN.
Artificial Intelligence and Law – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 20, 2012
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.