Arguments, scenarios and probabilities; connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning

Bart Verheij*, Floris Bex, Sjoerd T. Timmer, Charlotte Vlek, John-Jules Ch. Meyer, Silja Renooij, Hendrik Prakken

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

45 Citations (Scopus)
331 Downloads (Pure)


Due to the uses of DNA proling in criminal investigation and decision-making, it is ever more common that probabilistic information is discussed in courts. The people involved have varied backgrounds, as fact-finders and lawyers are more trained in the use of non-probabilistic information, while forensic experts handle probabilistic information on a routine basis. Hence, it is important to have a good understanding of the sort of reasoning that happens in criminal cases, both probabilistic and non-probabilistic. In the present paper, we report results on
combining three normative reasoning frameworks from the literature: arguments, scenarios and probabilities. We discuss a hybrid model that connects arguments and scenarios, a method to probabilistically model possible scenarios in a Bayesian network, a method to extract arguments from a Bayesian network, and a proposal to model arguments for and against different scenarios in standard probability theory. These results have been produced as parts of research projects on the formal and computational modelling of evidence. The
present paper reviews these results, shows how they are connected and where they differ, and discusses strengths and limitations.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)35-70
Number of pages36
JournalLaw, Probability & Risk
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Cite this