Maximal consistency, theory of evidence, and bayesian conditioning in the investigative domain

Cybernetics and Systems

Volumn 34, Issue 6-7, 2003, Pages 419-465

  Dragoni, Aldo Franco ^a   Animali, Samuele ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MACERATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYBERNETICS; ESTIMATION; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; INFORMATION THEORY; PROBABILITY; RELIABILITY;

BAYESIAN CONDITIONING; INFORMATION ACQUISITION; INQUIRY SUPPORT SYSTEMS; MAXIMAL CONSISTENCY;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0347080530     PISSN: 01969722     EISSN: 10876553     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01969720302863     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Alchourron, C. E., P. Gardenfors, and D. Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Simbolic Logic, 50:510-530.
2. Beccaria, C. 1764. Dei delitti e delle pene, XVIII, XXXVIII.
3. Bell, J. 1983. Policy arguments in judicial decisions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4. Benferhat, S., C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang and H. Prade. 1993. Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 640-645.
5. Bijker, W., and J. Law (Eds.) 1992. Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
6. Bruti Liberati, E., A. Ceretti, and A. Giansanti (Eds.) 1996. Governo dei Giudici. Milan: Feltrinelli.
7. Cohen, R. L., 1975. Children’s testimony and mediated (hearsay) evidence. Report to Law Reform Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. da
8. Damaska, M. R. 1986. The faces of justice and state authority. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9. de Kleer, J. 1986. An assumption based truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence, 28:127-162.
10. de Kleer, J. and B. C. Williams. 1987. Diagnosing multiple faults. Artificial Intelligence, 32(1).
11. Dent, M. R., and Stephenson, G. M. 1979. An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witness. British Journal of Social and Criminal Psychology, 18:41-45.
12. Dragoni, A. F., 1992. A model for belief revision in a multi-agent environment. In Decentralized A. Vol I. 3, pp. 103-112, edited by E. Werner and Y. Demazeau. North Holland, Elsevier Science Publisher.
13. Dragoni, A. F., 1997. Belief revision: From theory to practice. The knowledge Engineering Review, 12.
14. Dragoni, A. F., and M. Di Manzo. 1995. Supporting Complex Inquiries. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 10(11):959-986.
15. Dragoni, A. F., F. Mascaretti, and P. Puliti. 1995. A generalized approach to consistency-based belief revision. In Topics in Artificial Intelligence, edited by M. Gori and G. Soda. Proceedings of the Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 992, Springer Verlag.
16. Dubois and Prade, 1994. A survey of belief revision and update rules in various uncertainty models. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 9:61-100.
17. Flichy, P. 1995. L’innovation technique, Paris: La Decouverte.
18. Galanter, M. 1987. Adjudication, litigation and related phenomena. In Law and the social sciences edited by L. Lipson, and S. Wheeler. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
19. Gardenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge influx: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Gardenfors, P. 1990. Belief revision and non monotonic logic: Two sides of the same coin? In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, John Wiley & Sons.
21. Gardenfors, P. 1992. Belief revision. Cambridge University Press.
22. Hastie, R. (ed.) 1993. Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making, Cambridge Series on Judgements and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press.
23. Katsuno, H., and A. O. Mendelzon. 1991. Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence, 52:263-294.
24. Kennes, R. 1992. Computational aspects of the Mobius transform of a graph. IEEE Transactions in Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22:201-223.
25. Knapp, M. L., R. P. Hart, and H. S. Dennis. 1974. An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 15.
26. Knight, B., J. Ma, and E. Nissan. 1998. Representing temporal knowledge in legal discourse. Information & Communications Technology Law, 7(3):199-211.
27. Kuehn, L. 1974. Looking down a gun barrel: Person perception and violent crime. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39:1159-1164.
28. Lehmann, D. 1995. Belief revision, revised. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1534-1540.
29. Levy, F. 1994. A survey of belief revision and updating in classical logic. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 9:29-59.
30. Lipson, L., and S. Wheeler (Eds.) 1987. Law and the social sciences. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
31. Loftus, E. F. 1979. Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
32. Martins, J. P., and S. C. Shapiro. 1988. A model for belief revision. Artificial Intelligence, 35:25-79.
33. Montesquieu, 1748. De l’esprit des lois, 1-II, 11-VI.
34. Moral, S., and N. Wilson. 1996. Importance sampling Monte-Carlo algorithms for the calculation of dempster-Shafer belief. Proceeding of IPMU’96, Granada.
35. Nebel, B. 1994. Base revision operations and schemes: Semantics, representation, and complexity. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, edited by A. G. Cohn, John Wiley & Sons.
36. Parson, S. 1994. Some qualitative approaches to applying the Demster-Shafer theory. Information and Decision Technologies, 19:321-337.
37. Perelmen, C. 1945. De la justice. Brussels: Institut de Sociologie Solvay.
38. Postman, N. 1992. Technopoly. The surrender of culture to technology, 1992. New York: A. Knopf.
39. Reiter, R. 1987. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence, 32(1).
40. Roos, N. 1992. A logic for reasoning with inconsistent knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 57:69-103.
41. Ruback, R. B., and M. S. Greenberg. Crime victims as witnesses: Their accuracy and credibility. Victimology, 1(4):410.
42. Sartor, G. 1996. Intelligenza artificiale e diritto: un’introduzione. Milano: Giuffre.
43. Schum, D. A. 2001. Evidence marshaling for imaginative fact investigation. Artifical Intelligence and Law, 9(2-3): 165-188.
44. Shafer, G. 1976. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45. Shafer, G. 1990. Belief functions. In Readings in uncertain reasoning, edited by G. Shafer and J. Pearl. Morgan Kaufmann.
46. Shafer, G., and S. Srivastava. The Bayesian and belief-function formalisms a General Perpsective for Auditing. In Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, edited by G. Shafer and J. Pearl. Morgan Kaufmann.
47. Srivastava, R. P. 1995. The belief-function approach to aggregating audit evidence. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 10:329-356.
48. Srivastava, R. P., P. P. Shenoy, and G. Shafer. 1995. Propagating belief functions in AND-trees. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 10:647-664.
49. Tammelo, I. 1978. Modern logic in the service of law. Vienna: Springer Verlag.
50. Timm, H. W. 1985. Eyewitness recall and recognition by the elderly. Victimology, 1(4):425.
51. Trankell, A. 1972. Reliability of evidence, Stockholm; Beckmans.
52. Undeutsch, U. 1984. Coortroom evaluation of eyewitness testimony. International Review of Applied Psychology, 33(1).
53. Williams, M. A. 1995. Iterated theory base change: A computational model. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1541-1547.
54. Zuckermann, M., B. De Paulo, and R. Rosenthal. 1981. Verbal and non-verbal communications of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14(2).