30 found
Order:
See also
  1.  33
    Proof with and Without Probabilities: Correct Evidential Reasoning with Presumptive Arguments, Coherent Hypotheses and Degrees of Uncertainty.Bart Verheij - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1):127-154.
    Evidential reasoning is hard, and errors can lead to miscarriages of justice with serious consequences. Analytic methods for the correct handling of evidence come in different styles, typically focusing on one of three tools: arguments, scenarios or probabilities. Recent research used Bayesian networks for connecting arguments, scenarios, and probabilities. Well-known issues with Bayesian networks were encountered: More numbers are needed than are available, and there is a risk of misinterpretation of the graph underlying the Bayesian network, for instance as a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  2.  81
    Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
    This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes a notion borrowed from the .eld of argumentation theory - are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid in certain contexts or under certain (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   41 citations  
  3.  20
    A Method for Explaining Bayesian Networks for Legal Evidence with Scenarios.Charlotte S. Vlek, Henry Prakken, Silja Renooij & Bart Verheij - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (3):285-324.
    In a criminal trial, a judge or jury needs to reason about what happened based on the available evidence, often including statistical evidence. While a probabilistic approach is suitable for analysing the statistical evidence, a judge or jury may be more inclined to use a narrative or argumentative approach when considering the case as a whole. In this paper we propose a combination of two approaches, combining Bayesian networks with scenarios. Whereas a Bayesian network is a popular tool for analysing (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  4.  49
    A Hybrid Formal Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence.Floris J. Bex, Peter J. van Koppen, Henry Prakken & Bart Verheij - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):123-152.
    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 story-based. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  5.  15
    Analyzing the Simonshaven Case With and Without Probabilities.Bart Verheij - forthcoming - Topics in Cognitive Science.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  6.  12
    Building Bayesian Networks for Legal Evidence with Narratives: A Case Study Evaluation.Charlotte S. Vlek, Henry Prakken, Silja Renooij & Bart Verheij - 2014 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 22 (4):375-421.
    In a criminal trial, evidence is used to draw conclusions about what happened concerning a supposed crime. Traditionally, the three main approaches to modeling reasoning with evidence are argumentative, narrative and probabilistic approaches. Integrating these three approaches could arguably enhance the communication between an expert and a judge or jury. In previous work, techniques were proposed to represent narratives in a Bayesian network and to use narratives as a basis for systematizing the construction of a Bayesian network for a legal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  7.  78
    A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
    We provide a retrospective of 25 years of the International Conference on AI and Law, which was first held in 1987. Fifty papers have been selected from the thirteen conferences and each of them is described in a short subsection individually written by one of the 24 authors. These subsections attempt to place the paper discussed in the context of the development of AI and Law, while often offering some personal reactions and reflections. As a whole, the subsections build into (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  8.  9
    On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and N-Person Games: 25 Years Later.Pietro Baroni, Francesca Toni & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):1-14.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  86
    Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes. [REVIEW]Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (3):325-353.
    In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are connected in an analysis. Our treatment shows how two different types of knowledge, represented as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  10.  40
    Evidence & decision making in the law: theoretical, computational and empirical approaches.Marcello Di Bello & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (1):1-5.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  33
    Introduction to the Special Issue on Artificial Intelligence for Justice.Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Tom van Engers & Bart Verheij - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1):1-3.
  12.  36
    Legal Stories and the Process of Proof.Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (3):253-278.
    In this paper, we continue our research on a hybrid narrative-argumentative approach to evidential reasoning in the law by showing the interaction between factual reasoning (providing a proof for ‘what happened’ in a case) and legal reasoning (making a decision based on the proof). First we extend the hybrid theory by making the connection with reasoning towards legal consequences. We then emphasise the role of legal stories (as opposed to the factual stories of the hybrid theory). Legal stories provide a (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  13.  82
    Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme.Bart Verheij - 2001 - Argumentation 19 (3):347-371.
    Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not discuss at all. Arguments are evaluated in terms of a so-called dialectical interpretation of their assumptions. In such an interpretation, (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  14.  4
    Artificial Intelligence as Law.Bart Verheij - forthcoming - Artificial Intelligence and Law:1-26.
    Information technology is so ubiquitous and AI’s progress so inspiring that also legal professionals experience its benefits and have high expectations. At the same time, the powers of AI have been rising so strongly that it is no longer obvious that AI applications help promoting a good society; in fact they are sometimes harmful. Hence many argue that safeguards are needed for AI to be trustworthy, social, responsible, humane, ethical. In short: AI should be good for us. But how to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  13
    Research in Progress: Report on the ICAIL 2017 Doctoral Consortium.Maria Dymitruk, Réka Markovich, Rūta Liepiņa, Mirna El Ghosh, Robert van Doesburg, Guido Governatori & Bart Verheij - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (1):49-97.
    This paper arose out of the 2017 international conference on AI and law doctoral consortium. There were five students who presented their Ph.D. work, and each of them has contributed a section to this paper. The paper offers a view of what topics are currently engaging students, and shows the diversity of their interests and influences.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  16.  16
    Argument & Computation Community Resources Corner.Pietro Baroni & Bart Verheij - 2019 - Argument and Computation 10 (2):105-105.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17.  32
    An Integrated View on Rules and Principles.Bart Verheij, Jaap C. Hage & H. Jaap Van Den Herik - 1998 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 (1):3-26.
    In the law, it is generally acknowledged that there are intuitive differences between reasoning with rules and reasoning with principles. For instance, a rule seems to lead directly to its conclusion if its condition is satisfied, while a principle seems to lead merely to a reason for its conclusion. However, the implications of these intuitive differences for the logical status of rules and principles remain controversial.A radical opinion has been put forward by Dworkin (1978). The intuitive differences led him to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  18.  81
    The Toulmin Model Today: Introduction to the Special Issue on Contemporary Work Using Stephen Edelston Toulmin’s Layout of Arguments.David Hitchcock & Bart Verheij - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (3):255-258.
  19.  28
    Evidential Reasoning.Marcello Di Bello & Bart Verheij - 2018 - In G. Bongiovanni, G. Postema, A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, C. Valentini & D. Walton (eds.), Handbook in Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 447-493.
    The primary aim of this chapter is to explain the nature of evidential reasoning, the characteristic difficulties encountered, and the tools to address these difficulties. Our focus is on evidential reasoning in criminal cases. There is an extensive scholarly literature on these topics, and it is a secondary aim of the chapter to provide readers the means to find their way in historical and ongoing debates.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Accepting the Truth of a Story About the Facts of a Criminal Case.Bart Verheij & Floris Bex - 2008 - In Hendrik Kaptein (ed.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  21. Reason-Based Logic: A Logic for Reasoning with Rules and Reasons.Jaap Hage & Bart Verheij - 1994 - Inform. Commun. Technol. Law 3 (2-3):171-209.
  22.  33
    Douglas Walton: Argument Evaluation and Evidence: Springer, 2016, 286 Pp. [REVIEW]Marcello Di Bello & Bart Verheij - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):301-307.
  23.  2
    Douglas Walton, The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument; Ad Hominem Arguments; One-Sided Arguments. A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2001 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (4):305-313.
  24.  26
    Douglas Walton, the New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (Book Review). [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2001 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (4):305-313.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25.  18
    Jumping to Conclusions.Bart Verheij - 2012 - In Luis Farinas del Cerro, Andreas Herzig & Jerome Mengin (eds.), Logics in Artificial Intelligence. Springer. pp. 411--423.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26.  31
    Henry Prakken (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law.Bart Verheij - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1):35-65.
  27.  14
    Book Review: The Dynamics of Judicial Proof. Computation, Logic, and Common Sense. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (4):299-303.
  28.  13
    On the Existence of Semi-Stable Extensions.Martin Caminada & Bart Verheij - unknown
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29.  1
    Argument & Computation: Change and Continuity.Pietro Baroni & Bart Verheij - 2016 - Argument and Computation 7 (1):1-2.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30.  5
    Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation.Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski - 2018 - Springer Verlag.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark