Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
Volume 2015, Article ID 470818, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/470818
Research Article

CDMBE: A Case Description Model Based on Evidence

1Information School, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
2Hebei Finance University, Baoding 071051, China

Received 27 April 2015; Revised 21 July 2015; Accepted 16 August 2015

Academic Editor: Hasan Ayaz

Copyright © 2015 Jianlin Zhu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. F. J. Bex, P. J. van Koppen, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, “A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 123–152, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. J. Goodwin, “Wigmore's chart method,” Informal Logic, vol. 20, pp. 223–243, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  3. V. Leucari, “Analysis of complex patterns of evidence in legal cases: Wigmore charts vs. Bayesian networks,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 4, pp. 173–182, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  4. M. Xiong, “Legal logic method and the judicial justice,” Journal of Sun Yat-Sen University, vol. 5, pp. 143–151, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  5. M. Xiong and J. Chen, Science of Legal Logic, China Renmin University Press, Beijing, China, 2012.
  6. M. Xiong, Legal Arguments and Evidence, China University Political Science and Law Press, 2010.
  7. M. Xiong, “The judge's reasoning skills in court trial process,” Legal Science, vol. 9, pp. 16–19, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  8. M. Xiong, “A logical foundation of legal reasoning,” Legal Thinking and Legal Method, vol. 3, pp. 32–39, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  9. J. H. Wigmore, The Principles of Judicial Proof or the Process of Proof As Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, Little Brown and Company, Boston, Mass, USA, 2nd edition, 1931.
  10. H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk, “Logics for defeasible argumentation,” in Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 219–318, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  11. S. E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Updated Edition, Cambridge University Press, London, UK, 2003.
  12. B. Verheij, Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2005.
  13. J. C. Hage, “A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 4, no. 3-4, pp. 199–273, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. H. Prakke and G. Sartor, “Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities,” Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, vol. 7, no. 1-2, pp. 25–75, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. H. Prakken, “An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments,” Argument and Computation, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 93–124, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1995.
  17. D. N. Walton, Legal Argumentation and Evidence, Penn State University Press, University Park, Pa, USA, 2002.
  18. R. Allen and M. Redmayne, “Bayesianism and juridical proof,” The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, vol. 1, pp. 15–23, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  19. D. Schum, The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1994.
  20. F. Taroni, C. Aitken, P. Garbolino, and A. Biedermann, Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. A. P. Dawid, “Bayes's theorem and weighing evidence by juries,” in Bayes's Theorem Proceedings of the British Academy, pp. 71–90, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  22. G. Jackson, S. Jones, G. Booth, C. Champod, and I. W. Evett, “The nature of forensic science opinion—a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings,” Science and Justice, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 33–44, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. Mortera, A. P. Dawid, and S. L. Lauritzen, “Probabilistic expert systems for DNA mixture profiling,” Theoretical Population Biology, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 191–205, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. J. Keppens, Q. Shen, and C. Price, “Compositional Bayesian modelling for computation of evidence collection strategies,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 134–161, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. G. Chen, Criminal Procedure Law, China University of Political Science and Law Press, Beijing, China, 1996.
  26. J. He, Evidence Law (New Edition), Law Press, Beijing, China, 2000.
  27. W. Jiang, Science of Evidence Law, Law Press, Beijing, China, 1999.
  28. Y. Liao and R. Li, Evidence Law, Xiamen University Press, Xiamen, China, 2011.