Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence

Bex, Floris; Prakken, Henry; Verheij, Bart

doi:10.1145/1276318.1276320

Cited by 23 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper aims to expound mainly the formal logical version of the hybrid theory developed by Bex (2009), previous versions of which were discussed in (Bex et al 2007a(Bex et al , 2007b). This formal theory, which has served as the basis of the sense-making and visualization tool AVERS, 7 models reasoning with arguments as defeasible argumentation and reasoning with stories as abductive (modelbased) inference to the best explanation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one storybased. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of an event, e.g., based on witness testimony, are central. In a story-based approach, evidence is evaluated and interpreted from the perspective of the factual stories as they may have occurred in a case, e.g., as they are defended by the prosecution. In this paper, we argue that both arguments and narratives are relevant and useful in the reasoning with and interpretation of evidence. Therefore a hybrid approach is proposed and formally developed, doing justice to both the argumentbased and the narrative-based perspective. By the formalization of the theory and the associated graphical representations, our proposal is the basis for the design of software developed as a tool to make sense of the evidence in complex cases.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, they do not distinguish arguments and hypotheses. Bex et al [5] combine abduction and argumentation in the context of evidential reasoning. An argumentation framework is given as a pair (G, E) where G is a set of evidential generalisations and E is a set of evidences.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The framework has been later extended to assumption-based argumentation [9]. Dung also introduces formal argumentation [14] as an abstract framework for argumentative reasoning, and the framework has been extended in various ways to incorporate explanatory reasoning [5,20,28,29]. This paper studies an abductive framework based on Dung's abstract argumentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abduction in Argumentation Frameworks and Its Use in Debate Games

Sakama

2014

New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper studies an abduction problem in formal argumentation frameworks. Given an argument, an agent verifies whether the argument is justified or not in its argumentation framework. If the argument is not justified, the agent seeks conditions to explain the argument in its argumentation framework. We formulate such abductive reasoning in argumentation semantics and provide its computation in logic programming. Next we apply abduction in argumentation frameworks to reasoning by players in debate games. In debate games, two players have their own argumentation frameworks and each player builds claims to refute the opponent. A player may provide false or inaccurate arguments as a tactic to win the game. We show that abduction is used not only for seeking counter-claims but also for building dishonest claims in debate games.

show abstract

“…This is motivated by the fact that, although the proponents in ANT focus on the story-based perspective in their choice both of wording and of research background, several of their central claims have a more argumentative than story-based flavour (cf. [31,6]). Especially the role of generalisations (or anchors), exceptions to these generalisations and of the dynamics of developing and refining an analysis of the evidence in a case are characteristic for an argumentative approach.…”

Section: New Evidence Theory and Anchored Narratives Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper we illustrate both types of influences with an example. In [6] the insights drawn from these examples are fully formalised.…”

Section: The Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments?

Bex¹,

Braak²,

Oostendorp³

et al. 2007

Law, Probability and Risk

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sense-making software for crime investigation should be based on a model of reasoning about evidence that is both natural and rationally well-founded. A formal model is proposed that combines AI formalisms for abductive inference to the best explanation and for defeasible argumentation. Stories about what might have happened in a case are represented as causal networks and possible hypotheses can be inferred by abductive reasoning. Links between stories and the available evidence are expressed with evidential generalisations that express how observations can be inferred from evidential sources with defeasible argumentation. It is argued that this approach unifies two well-known accounts of reasoning about evidence, namely, anchored narratives theory and new evidence theory. After the reasoning model is defined, a design is presented for sense-making software that allows crime investigators to visualise their thinking about a case in terms of the reasoning model.

show abstract

Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence

Cited by 23 publications

References 16 publications

A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence

A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence

Abduction in Argumentation Frameworks and Its Use in Debate Games

Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About