Demonstration of a structure-guided approach to capturing bayesian reasoning about legal evidence in argumentation

Reasoning about statistics and probabilities can, when not treated with cautiousness, lead to reasoning errors. Over the last decades the rise of forensic sciences has led to an increase in the availability of statistical evidence. To facilitate the correct explanation of such evidence we investigate how argumentation models can help in the interpretation of statistical information. Uncertainties are by forensic experts often expressed numerically, but lawyers, judges and other legal experts have notorious difficulty interpreting these results [3, 1, 2, 5]. In this demonstration of our main paper [6] we focus on the connection between formal models of argumentation and Bayesian belief networks (BNs). We use BNs because they are a well-known model to represent and reason with complex probabilistic information. We introduce the notion of a support graph as an intermediate structure between Bayesian networks and argumentation models. A support graph captures the inferences modelled in a Bayesian network but disentangles the complicating graphical properties of such models and instead emphasises its intuitive understanding. Moreover, we show that this intermediate model can function as a template to generate different arguments based on the data.