Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies

The purpose of this paper is to address some criticisms recently raised by John Horty in two articles against the validity of two commonly accepted defeasible reasoning patterns, viz. reinstatement and floating conclusions. I shall argue that Horty's counterexamples, although they significantly raise our understanding of these reasoning patterns, do not show their invalidity. Some of them reflect patterns which, if made explicit in the formalisation, avoid the unwanted inference without having to give up the criticised inference principles. Other examples seem to involve hidden assumptions about the specific problem which, if made explicit, are nothing but extra information that defeat the defeasible inference. These considerations will be put in a wider perspective by reflecting on the nature of defeasible reasoning principles as principles of justified acceptance rather than `real' logical inference.Comment: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2002), Toulouse, France, April 19-21, 200

AI & Law, logic and argument schemes

This paper reviews the history of AI & Law research from the perspective of argument schemes. It starts with the observation that logic, although very well applicable to legal reasoning when there is uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement, is too abstract to give a fully satisfactory classification of legal argument types. It therefore needs to be supplemented with an argument-scheme approach, which classifies arguments not according to their logical form but according to their content, in particular, according to the roles that the various elements of an argument can play. This approach is then applied to legal reasoning, to identify some of the main legal argument schemes. It is also argued that much AI & Law research in fact employs the argument-scheme approach, although it usually is not presented as such. Finally, it is argued that the argument-scheme approach and the way it has been employed in AI & Law respects some of the main lessons to be learnt from Toulmin's The Uses of Argument

Modeling crime scenarios in a Bayesian Network

Legal cases involve reasoning with evidence and with the development of a software support tool in mind, a formal foundation for evidential reasoning is required. Three approaches to evidential reasoning have been prominent in the literature: argumentation, narrative and probabilistic reasoning. In this paper a combination of the latter two is proposed. In recent research on Bayesian networks applied to legal cases, a number of legal idioms have been developed as recurring structures in legal Bayesian networks. A Bayesian network quantifies how various variables in a case interact. In the narrative approach, scenarios provide a context for the evidence in a case. A method that integrates the quantitative, numerical techniques of Bayesian networks with the qualitative, holistic approach of scenarios is lacking. In this paper, a method is proposed for modeling several scenarios in a single Bayesian network. The method is tested by doing a case study. Two new idioms are introduced: the scenario idiom and the merged scenarios idiom. The resulting network is meant to assist a judge or jury, helping to maintain a good overview of the interactions between relevant variables in a case and preventing tunnel vision by comparing various scenarios