28-05-2007 | 1 › Floris Bex / Centre for Law and ICT › Henry Prakken / Centre for Law and ICT Dept. of ICS, Utrecht University Investigating stories in.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Advertisements

Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Henry Prakken (& Floris Bex, Susan van den Braak, Herre van Oostendorp,
Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical and Toulmin, Models Junior AP English September 23, 2008.
By Anthony Campanaro & Dennis Hernandez
On norms for the dynamics of argumentative interaction: argumentation as a game Henry Prakken Amsterdam January 18, 2010.
Commonsense Reasoning and Argumentation 14/15 HC 8 Structured argumentation (1) Henry Prakken March 2, 2015.
On the structure of arguments, and what it means for dialogue Henry Prakken COMMA-08 Toulouse,
Legal Argumentation 2 Henry Prakken March 28, 2013.
Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Henry Prakken (& Floris Bex, Susan van den Braak, Herre van Oostendorp,
Developing Arguments for the Science Classroom Kris Carroll CPDD Curriculum & Professional Development Division, Science Health & Foreign Language June,
Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010.
Mock Trial.  GOAL IS TO MAP OUT YOUR CASE IN A STORY  TELL A STORY FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE  DO NOT ARGUE!
Commonsense Reasoning and Argumentation 14/15 HC 13: Dialogue Systems for Argumentation (1) Henry Prakken 25 March 2015.
Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence Henry Prakken Lissabon, Portugal December 11, 2009.
AKA: The Last Words AAKA: Parting Gift Closing Arguments.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate An Examination of Values. OBJECTIVES: The student will 1. Demonstrate understanding of the concepts that underlie Lincoln-Douglas.
Faculty of Law Argumentative Story-based Analysis of Evidence Floris Bex (Law and ICT, U. Groningen) Henry Prakken (Law and ICT, U. Groningen / Information.
Reasoning with testimony Argumentation vs. Explanatory Coherence Floris Bex - University of Groningen Henry Prakken - University of Groningen - Utrecht.
Argumentation Logics Lecture 4: Games for abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Chongqing June 1, 2010.
Critical Thinking: A User’s Manual Chapter 3 Analyzing Arguments.
Argumentation Logics Lecture 7: Argumentation with structured arguments (3) Henry Prakken Chongqing June 4, 2010.
Argumentation Logics Lecture 4: Games for abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Chongqing June 1, 2010.
Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010.
Unit 1 – Writing Format / Persuasive Writing
Let’s Write a Mystery. What is a Mystery? A mystery is a secret, a riddle, or a puzzle. You have to find out the secret, and solve the riddle or puzzle.
Lecture 3 Inductive and Abductive Arguments Li Jianhui
What is Science? Science is a system of knowledge based on facts and principles.
The Trial Process and the Investigator as a Witness.
Mock Trial. What? Who? How? Questions? Phil Sneeky took Mr. Abdel’s laptop computer from the staff room. The secretary, Ms. Bythebook, saw him do it.
Presentations A General Introduction into the basic principles.
1 PERSUASIVE SPEAKING Constructing Speech Goal Adapting Goal to Audience Attitude.
Chapter 12 CAUSAL REASONING.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 15 Ethics #1 (Intro.) By David Kelsey.
Closing Statements. About Closing Statements They are more difficult to prepare than opening statements.  You never know exactly what will come out at.
Arguing Agents in a Multi- Agent System for Regulated Information Exchange Pieter Dijkstra.
Commonsense Reasoning and Argumentation 14/15 HC 14: Dialogue systems for argumentation (2) Henry Prakken 30 March 2015.
Research Skills Mr. BETA Aim: How do you conduct proper research for a paper or project? Do Now: In your notebooks, Define: * Argument *
CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim
Introduction to Science.  Science: a system of knowledge based on facts or principles  Science is observing, studying, and experimenting to find the.
A Quantitative Trust Model for Negotiating Agents A Quantitative Trust Model for Negotiating Agents Jamal Bentahar, John Jules Ch. Meyer Concordia University.
Basic Concepts of Logic An Overview of Introduction to Logic Yingrui Yang
Chapter 10 Lecture Notes Causal Inductive Arguments.
Lecture №1 Role of science in modern society. Role of science in modern society.
The Trial Process. Titles  Defendant- the person accused of a crime  Prosecution- uses evidence to make the defendant look guilty  Prosecution must.
The Fox Hunting Debate1 Discussion Purpose: to present arguments and information from differing viewpoints. Should fox hunting be banned?
Belleville High School Law Related Education Program.
How to structure good history writing Always put an introduction which explains what you are going to talk about. Always put a conclusion which summarises.
Persuasive Essay. Definition and Purpose Definition of Persuasion: 1) To prevail on a person to do something, as by advising or urging 2) To induce to.
SPEECH ACTS Saying as Doing See R. Nofsinger, Everyday Conversation, Sage, 1991.
CHAPTER 7: Emond Montgomery Publications 1 Direct Examination of Witnesses.
The Practice of Statistics, 5th Edition Starnes, Tabor, Yates, Moore Bedford Freeman Worth Publishers CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim 9.1 Significance Tests:
Debate-Public Speaking 7 th Grade Communication Arts.
Can you write us a sentence? Use the clues given!.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS Angie Parkinson. What is critical analysis? What do you think? But you also have to evaluate if evidence supports conclusions: Evidence:
debate is all about arguing between affirmative/government team and negative/opposition team upon a motion. Affirmative  support the motion Negative.
Quietly get supplies and have a seat Supplies Pencil Science notebook open to homework Colored pen or pencil Scissors.
CHAPTER TWO Introduction of Basic Concepts. CRIME AND THE INVESTIGATOR Homicide is leading cause of death for women in the workplace and for black men.
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION OF A MOCK TRIAL
From natural language to Bayesian Networks (and back)
Elements of an Argument
Belleville High School Law Related Education Program
Scientific Method.
THE NATURE OF SCIENCE Essential Questions
Teaching writing across the curriculum
Developing Arguments for Persuasive Speeches
Belleville High School Law Related Education Program
Belleville High School Law Related Education Program
FOR TEACHERS Monday – Focus on exposing students to vocabulary, getting definitions, and practicing Tuesday – Slip or Trip activity to begin practicing.
Belleville High School Law Related Education Program
Presentation transcript:

| 1 › Floris Bex / Centre for Law and ICT › Henry Prakken / Centre for Law and ICT Dept. of ICS, Utrecht University Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game

| 2 Introduction ›Logical framework for analysing and reasoning with evidence and stories in criminal cases. ›Limitation: provides a static viewpoint. ›Formal dialogue game to model the dynamics of developing and refining an analysis of a case. Analysts build and refine stories (explanations) and support them with evidence. Determine the best story in an adversarial setting.

| 3 Contents of this talk ›Summary of the framework for evidential reasoning with stories and arguments. ›A dialogue game for the analysis of evidential stories and arguments. ›Example dialogue. ›Conclusion

| 4 Two approaches to evidential reasoning ›Story-based approach Construct and compare stories about what happened in a case. Modelled as abductive inference to the best explanation (IBE). ›(Wigmorean) argument graph approach. Construct argument graphs from sources of evidence to conclusion. Modelled with formal argumentation theory.

| 5 Abductive inference to the best explanation ›Stories are modelled as causal networks. ›Given: a causal theory T consisting of causal rules of the form event1  C event2. explananda F (facts to be explained). ›Hypothesize a set of causes H such that H  T logically implies F (“explains F”). ›Compare different hypothesis according to some criteria.

| 6 Different explanations Event1 Event3Event2 Explanandum

| 7 Different explanations Event1 Event3Event2 Explanandum

| 8 Evidential arguments ›Arguments are constructed using input (evidence) and evidential generalizations of the form P  E Q. ›Arguments have a tree structure. ›An argument can be rebut or undercut by another argument. ›An argument can be justified, overruled or defensible.

| 9 Arguments ›Attacking arguments John says ”Rijkbloem shot my husband!” John shot peter Witness 1 says ”John shot Peter” Witness 1 says ”John shot Peter” Witness says “P”  E P Witness 2 says ”John did not shoot Peter” John did not shoot Peter Witness 1 says ”John shot Peter”

| 10 Arguments John says ”Rijkbloem shot my husband!” John shot peter Witness 1 says ”John shot Peter” Witness 1 says ”John shot Peter” Witness 1 is not trustworthy John shot peter ›Attacking arguments

| 11 Combining the theories ›The stories are modelled as causal networks Different stories = different explanations ›Sources of evidence are connected to the stories using evidential arguments. ›Explanations are compared by how many sources of evidence are covered: An explanation S covers a piece of evidence P if there is a (non-overruled) argument from P to an event in S

| 12 The dialogue game ›Game between two players. ›Players build a model that contains explanations supported by arguments. ›Elements of the dialogue game: Communication language (speech acts) Commitment rules Protocol Turntaking and winning

| 13 Communication language ›Argue AR The speaker states an argument AR ›Explain (E, S) The speaker provides an explanation S for E ›Concede / retract p The speaker concedes or retracts p

| 14 Protocol ›Legality of moves: a move must be a sensible operation on the evidential framework, e.g.: ›Arguments may be stated: to attack other arguments to attack explanations to increase evidential support ›Explanations may be given for propositions.

| 15 Turntaking and winning ›Adversarial setting: each player must try to advance and support his own explanation. ›Current winner: player who is committed to the explanation with the best evidential coverage. ›Players must try to become the current winner by giving explanations, supporting and attacking explanations.

| 16 Example: the Haaknat case ›A supermarket is robbed and the masked robbers flee. ›Police conduct a search operation in a park near the supermarket, hoping to find the robber. ›Haaknat was found hiding in a moat in the park and the police, believing that Haaknat was the robber, apprehended him. ›Haaknat, however, argued that he was hiding in the moat because earlier that day, he had an argument with a man called Benny over some money. ›According to Haaknat, Benny drew a knife so Haaknat fled and hid himself in the moat where the police found him.

| 17 Example: giving explanations ›p 1 : Explain ({H is found}, {H robs supermarket}  T 1 ) H is found H hides in a moat H flees H robs supermarket

| 18 Example: giving explanations ›p 1 : Explain ({H is found}, {H robs supermarket}  T 1 ) ›p 2 : Explain ({H is found}, {argument between H and B}  T 2 ) H is found H hides in a moat H flees H robs supermarket Argument between H and B

| 19 Example: supporting explanations with evidence ›p 2 : argue H testified that he had an argument with B H is found H hides in a moat H flees H robs supermarket Argument between H and B

| 20 Example: supporting explanations with evidence ›p 2 : argue AR 1 H is found H hides in a moat H flees H robs supermarket Argument between H and B Haaknat says: “I had an argument with B” ge 1 : Witness says “P”  E P

| 21 Example: attacking supporting arguments ›p 1 : Haaknat is a suspect and suspects do not make reliable witnesses so  ge 1 H is found H hides in a moat H flees H robs supermarket Argument between H and B AR 1 H is a suspect

| 22 Example: expanding and supporting explanations ›p 1 : Explain ({H robs supermarket}, {H is from S }  T 3 ) H is found H hides in a moat H flees H robs supermarket Argument between H and B H is from Suriname

| 23 Example: expanding and supporting explanations ›p 1 : Explain ({H robs supermarket}, {H is from S }  T 3 ) ›p 1 : Argue I have evidence that R is from Suriname H is found H hides in a moat H flees H robs supermarket Argument between H and B H is from Suriname Evidence

| 24 Example: attacking explanations ›p 2 : Argue your causal generalization is based on prejudice H is found H hides in a moat H flees H robs supermarket Argument between H and B H is from Suriname Evidence Prejudiced

| 25 Conclusions ›Dynamic dialogue game for analysing stories and evidence. ›Find the best explanation in an adversarial setting. ›Players jointly build a model. ›Combination of enquiry and persuasion dialogue. ›Game can provide guidelines for discussions. ›Theory can serve as basis for system AVERs.

| 26 Thank you for your attention