Email this article A Design of Criminal Investigation Expert System Based on CILS
Abstract
Based on the theoretical research and actual developing status of artificial intelligence and expert system, this paper discusses several issues in the development of criminal investigation expert systems (CIESs). In particular, we focus on a cooperative intuition learning system (CILS) which employs domain knowledge of recidivism in the crime analysis system. Using the elicited domain knowledge, the CILS tool uses deductive reasoning techniques to make inferences and provide suggestive courses of action to support the investigatory functions of police, attorneys, or probation officials. In this paper, we present an experience mapping intuitive inversion principle (EMII), and we describe the rationale for developing the CIESs, why we focus on the criminal analysis system, the methodology for eliciting CILS domain knowledge and experience, and a scenario of what we are implementing as a proof of intuition learning system. A series of elicitation sessions which epitomize the CILS have been discussed in the paper. After presenting an overview of the system and the major research choices, we describe in detail the system’s modules and present examples of its potential
Keywords
References
[1] Dijkstra, J.J.,The influence of an expert system on the user's view: How to fool a lawyer. New Review of Applied Expert Systems, 2006, vol.1, pp.123-138.
[2] Charlette M. Donalds, Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson, Criminal Investigation Knowledge System: CRIKS, Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006, pp.1-9.
[3] He Ping. Fuzzy relationship mapping inversion and the automatic reasoning of crime detective. Pattern Recognition and Artificial intelligence. 2003, pp. 58-62 (Chinese)
[4] F.J. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D.N. Walton, Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2003, Vol.12, pp.125–165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a
[5] He Ping. Fuzzy relationship mapping inversion and automatic reasoning of crime detective, (AIAI2005), Springer, Artificial Intelligence Application and Innovations, 2005, pp.691-700.
[6] Jin Li, Ping He, Extended automatic reasoning of criminal investigation, IEEE Computer Society, International Conference on Industrial Mechatronics and Automation, 2009, 546-649
[7] F.J. Bex, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, Anchored narratives in reasoning about evidence, In T. M. van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, IOS Press, 2006, pp.11-20.
[8] S.W. van den Braak and G. Vreeswijk, AVER: Argument visualization for evidential reasoning, In T. M. van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, IOS Press, Amsterdam etc., 2006, pp.151–156.
[9] B.G. Buchanan and E.H. (eds.) Shortliffe, Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1984.
[10] H F M Crombag, P J van Koppen, and W A Wagenaar, Dubieuze zaken: De psychologie van strafrechtelijk bewijs. Uitgeverij Contact, Amsterdam, second edition, 1994.
[11] R.P. Loui, Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference, Computational Intelligence, 1987, vol.2, pp.100–106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.1987.tb00178.x
[12] P. Lucas, Symbolic diagnosis and its formalisation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 1997, vol.12, pp.109–146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269888997002026
[13] J. Pearl, Embracing causality in default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 1988, vol,35, pp.259–271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(88)90015-X
[14] J.L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
[15] D.L. Poole, Logical argumentation, abduction and Bayesian decision theory: a Bayesian approach to logical arguments and its application to legal evidential reasoning. Cardozo Law Review, 2001, vol.22, pp.1733–1745.
[16] C.J. Poot, R.J. Bokhorst, P.J. van Koppen, and E.R. Muller, Rechercheportret: Over Dilemma’s in de Opsporing. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2004. In Dutch.
[17] H. Prakken, Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation, Law, Probability and Risk, 2004, vol. 3, pp.33–50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/lpr/3.1.33
[18] H. Prakken and G.A.W. Vreeswijk, Logics for defeasible argumentation, In D. Gabbay and F. G¨unthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2002, vol.4, pp.219–318.
[19] R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 1980, vol.13, pp.81–132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4
[20] J. van der Schoor, Brains voor de recherche. Justiti¨ele Verkenningen, 2004, vol.30, pp.96–99.
[21] D. Schum and P, Tillers. Marshaling evidence for adversary litigation, Cardozo Law Review, 1991, vol.13, pp.657–704.
Full Text: PDF