A new use case for argumentation support tools:supporting discussions of Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases

In this paper a new use case for legal argumentation support tools is considered: supporting discussions about analyses of complex criminal cases with the help of Bayesian probability theory. By way of a case study, two actual discussions between experts in court cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. In this study the usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, a new argument scheme for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates between experts about the validity of their arguments. From a practical point of view the case study yields insights into the design of support software for discussions about Bayesian analyses of complex criminal cases

Constructing Bayesian Network Graphs from Labeled Arguments

Bayesian networks (BNs) are powerful tools that are well-suited for reasoning about the uncertain consequences that can be inferred from evidence. Domain experts, however, typically do not have the expertise to construct BNs and instead resort to using other tools such as argument diagrams and mind maps. Recently, a structured approach was proposed to construct a BN graph from arguments annotated with causality information. As argumentative inferences may not be causal, we generalize this approach to include other types of inferences in this paper. Moreover, we prove a number of formal properties of the generalized approach and identify assumptions under which the construction of an initial BN graph can be fully automated

Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2017: The Thirtieth Annual Conference

The proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2017. For three decades, the JURIX conferences have been held under the auspices of the Dutch Foundation for Legal Knowledge Based Systems (www.jurix.nl). In the time, it has become a European conference in terms of the diverse venues throughout Europe and the nationalities of participants

From arguments to constraints on a Bayesian network

In this paper, we propose a way to derive constraints for a Bayesian Network from structured arguments. Argumentation and Bayesian networks can both be considered decision support techniques, but are typically used by experts with different backgrounds. Bayesian network experts have the mathematical skills to understand and construct such networks, but lack expertise in the application domain; domain experts may feel more comfortable with argumentation approaches. Our proposed method allows us to check Bayesian networks given arguments constructed for the same problem, and also allows for transforming arguments into a Bayesian network structure, thereby facilitating Bayesian network construction