Explanations in reasoning with evidence

Abstract

In reasoning with evidence, hypothetical stories explaining what happened in a case are constructed by making sense of the observed evidence. The integrated theory formalises this process by combining causal and evidential reasoning, resulting in an integrated argumentation framework that represents all arguments in a case. In the legal domain, where decisions must be transparently justified, explanations are essential to show why certain conclusions are accepted. The Argumentative Explanation Framework is a general framework developed for these types of explanations, as it explains why an argument or its conclusion is accepted in an argumentation framework by identifying the relevant arguments that influence the acceptance. This thesis investigates how integrated argumentation frameworks and the Argumentative Explanation Framework can be applied to generate informative explanations in the context of reasoning with evidence. Building on the existing integrated theory, three key aspects are incorporated that determine an explanation’s quality in reasoning with evidence: selectivity, causal attribution, and conformity to evidence. These notions are then integrated into the Argumentative Explanation Framework to generate causal and evidential explanations that are both informative and interpretable.