Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Consistent pathway analysis: a structured analytic method

  • Lee TobinEmail author
  • Pavel Gladyshev
Article

Abstract

Mistakes during criminal investigations are costly, leading to wrongful convictions, so it is helpful to employ rigorous analytic methods to help mitigate errors and biases. This paper introduces a new method to help make sense of a set of information, allowing thought processes to be externalised in a systematic and transparent manner. While this method is presented in a criminal investigation context, it can be applied to any situation where analysis of several hypotheses and evidence is required. Open source software was created and used to test the method empirically. A simulated criminal investigation was carried out by seventy-five trainee investigators, the results showed better conclusions were reached when using the method.

Keywords

Structured analytic method Morphological analysis Reasoning 

References

  1. Akgun I (2015) Likelihood estimation of intentional events in risk management: Evidence based intelligent morphological analysis approach. In: Intelligent techniques in engineering management, Springer, pp 45–75Google Scholar
  2. Dubois D, Prade H (2009) Formal representations of uncertainty. In: Decision-making process: concepts and methods pp 85–156Google Scholar
  3. Gilead M, Sela M, Maril A (2018) That’s my truth: evidence for involuntary opinion confirmation. Soc Psychol Personal Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618762300 Google Scholar
  4. Greller W, Drachsler H (2012) Translating learning into numbers: a generic framework for learning analytics. Educ Technol Soc 15(3):42–57Google Scholar
  5. Heuer RJ (1999) Psychology of intelligence analysis. Echo Point Books & Media, BrattleboroGoogle Scholar
  6. Heuer RJ (2016) ACH, step by step. competinghypotheses.org. Accessed 10 Jan 2016Google Scholar
  7. Janis IL (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes, vol 349. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Jimenez H, Mavris D (2010) An evolution of morphological analysis applications in systems engineering. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, p 972Google Scholar
  9. Klayman J, Ha YW (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychol Rev 94(2):211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lagnado DA, Fenton N, Neil M (2013) Legal idioms: a framework for evidential reasoning. Argum Comput 4(1):46–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin DL (2001) Lessons about justice from the laboratory of wrongful convictions: tunnel vision, the construction of guilt and informer evidence. UMKC L Rev 70:847Google Scholar
  12. Pherson R (2008) Handbook of analytic tools and techniques. Pherson Associates, RestonGoogle Scholar
  13. Pope S, Josang A (2005) Analysis of competing hypotheses using subjective logic. Tech. rep., Queensland University (Australia)Google Scholar
  14. Primer AT (2009) Structured analytic techniques for improving intelligence analysis. CIA Center for the study of intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  15. Richards HJ, Pherson RH (2010) Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis. CQ Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Ritchey T (1998) General morphological analysis. In: 16th EURO conference on operational analysisGoogle Scholar
  17. Rossmo DK (2008) Criminal investigative failures. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tobin L (2018) Consistent pathway analysis software. Demo: http://dfire.ucd.ie/cpa, Source: https://github.com/leetobin/cpa. Accessed 10 June 2018
  19. Valtorta M, Dang J, Goradia H, Huang J, Huhns M (2005) Extending heuer’s analysis of competing hypotheses method to support complex decision analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on intelligence analysis (IA-05)(CDROM), extended version available at http://www.cse.sc.edu/~mgv/reports/IA-05.pdf, Citeseer
  20. Verheij B, Bex F, Timmer ST, Vlek CS, Meyer JJC, Renooij S, Prakken H (2015) Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning. Law Probab Risk 15(1):35–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Woods K, Lee C, Garfinkel S, Dittrich D, Russel A, Kearton K (2011) Creating realistic corpora for forensic and security education. In: Proceedings of the ADFSL conference on digital forensics, security and law, pp 123–134Google Scholar
  22. Zwicky F (1969) Morphology of justice in the space age and the boundaries of outer space (legal aspects concerning outer space and boundaries, discussing treaty aspects considered by various international congresses). Astronaut Acta 14:615–626Google Scholar
  23. Zwicky F (2012) Morphological astronomy. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations