CDMBE: A Case Description Model Based on Evidence

By combining the advantages of argument map and Bayesian network, a case description model based on evidence (CDMBE), which is suitable to continental law system, is proposed to describe the criminal cases. The logic of the model adopts the credibility logical reason and gets evidence-based reasoning quantitatively based on evidences. In order to consist with practical inference rules, five types of relationship and a set of rules are defined to calculate the credibility of assumptions based on the credibility and supportability of the related evidences. Experiments show that the model can get users’ ideas into a figure and the results calculated from CDMBE are in line with those from Bayesian model

Towards Sound Forensic Arguments: Structured Argumentation Applied to Digital Forensics Practice

Digital forensic practitioners are increasingly facing examinations which are both complex in nature and structure. Throughout this process, during the examination and analysis phases, the practitioner is constantly drawing logical inferences which will be reflected in the reporting of results. Therefore, it is important to expose how all the elements of an investigation fit together to allow review and scrutiny, and to support associated parties to understand the components within it. This paper proposes the use of ‘Structured Argumentation’ as a valuable and flexible ingredient of the practitioners’ thinking toolbox. It explores this approach using three case examples which allow discussion of the benefits and application of structured argumentation to real world contexts. We argue that, despite requiring a short learning curve, structured argumentation is a practical method which promotes accessibility of findings facilitating communication between technical and legal parties, peer review, logical reconstruction, jury interpretation, and error detection

Legal knowledge-based systems: new directions in system design

This thesis examines and critiques the concept of 'legal knowledge-based’ systems. Work on legal knowledge-based systems is dominated by work in 'artificial intelligence and law’. It seeks to automate the application of law and to automate the solution of legal problems. Automation however, has proved elusive. In contrast to such automation, this thesis proposes the creation of legal knowledge-based systems based on the concept of augmentation of legal work. Focusing on systems that augment legal work opens new possibilities for system creation and use. To inform how systems might augment legal work, this thesis examines philosophy, psychology and legal theory for information they provide on how processes of legal reasoning operate. It is argued that, in contrast to conceptions of law adopted in artificial intelligence and law, 'sensemaking' provides a useful perspective with which to create systems. It is argued that visualisation, and particularly diagrams, are an important and under considered element of reasoning and that producing systems that support diagramming of processes of legal reasoning would provide useful support for legal work. This thesis reviews techniques for diagramming aspects of sensemaking. In particular this thesis examines standard methods for diagramming arguments and methods for diagramming reasoning. These techniques are applied in the diagramming of legal judgments. A review is conducted of systems that have been constructed to support the construction of diagrams of argument and reasoning. Drawing upon these examinations, this thesis highlights the necessity of appropriate representations for supporting reasoning. The literature examining diagramming for reasoning support provides little discussion of appropriate representations. This thesis examines theories of representation for insight they can provide into the design of appropriate representations. It is concluded that while the theories of representation that are examined do not determine what amounts to a good representation, guidelines for the design and choice of representations can be distilled. These guidelines cannot map the class of legal knowledge-based systems that augment legal sensemaking, they can however, be used to explore this class and to inform construction of systems

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature