Representing and Evaluating Legal Narratives with Subscenarios in a Bayesian network

In legal cases, stories or scenarios can serve as the context for a crime when reasoning with evidence. In order to develop a scientifically founded technique for evidential reasoning, a method is required for the representation and evaluation of various scenarios in a case. In this paper the probabilistic technique of Bayesian networks is proposed as a method for modeling narrative, and it is shown how this can be used to capture a number of narrative properties. Bayesian networks quantify how the variables in a case interact. Recent research on Bayesian networks applied to legal cases includes the development of a list of legal idioms: recurring substructures in legal Bayesian networks. Scenarios are coherent presentations of a collection of states and events, and qualitative in nature. A method combining the quantitative, probabilistic approach with the narrative approach would strengthen the tools to represent and evaluate scenarios. In a previous paper, the development of a design method for modeling multiple scenarios in a Bayesian network was initiated. The design method includes two narrative idioms: the scenario idiom and the merged scenarios idiom. In this current paper, the method of Vlek, et al. (2013) is extended with a subscenario idiom and it is shown how the method can be used to represent characteristic features of narrative

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

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