Advertisement

Belief-Based Argumentation in Intelligence Analysis and Decision Making

  • James LlinasEmail author
  • Galina Rogova
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 616)

Abstract

This paper asserts that a multi-perspective viewpoint must be taken in the design of a computational system support capability for decision-making. We offer views from a Decision-Science slant, a Systemic Architectural view, and the need for technological support to realize improvements in analytical rigor. We have been researching and evolving the design of an analysis tool framework exploiting the hybrid concepts of a Belief-based Argumentation and Story-based subsystem. The notion of rigor, defined as a quality measure on the reasoning/analysis process, is one overarching principle of our approach, driven by the need for the associated analysis/decision-support product quality that complex modern problems demand. Our approach to the design of a mixed-initiative analysis tool is highly multidisciplinary and has taken account of an exhaustive review of the relevant literature along each viewpoint.

Keywords

Decision support Transferable belief model Defeasible argumentation Sequential decision making Story telling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper results from research supported by the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Assistance Grant No. N00244-15-1-0051 awarded by the NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center SanDiego (NAVSUP FLC San Diego). The views expressed in written materials or publications, and/or made by speakers, moderators, and presenters, do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Naval Postgraduate School nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

  1. 1.
    Bex, F.J.: Abductive argumentation with stories. In: ICAIL-2013 Workshop on Formal Aspects of Evidential Inference (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smets, P.: Data fusion in the transferable belief model. In: Proceeding of the FUSION 2000-Third Conference on Multisource- Multisensor Information Fusion, pp. 21–33 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogova, G., Hadrazagic, M., St-Hilaire, M.-O., Florea, M., Valin, P.: Context-based information quality for sequential decision making. In: Proceeding of the 2013 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA) (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simari, G., Rahwan, I.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, NewYork (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rogova, G., Scott, P., Lollett, C., Mudiyanur, R.: Reasoning about situations in the early post- disaster response environment. In: Proceeding of the FUSION 2006-9th Conference on Multisource Information Fusion (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haenni, R., Kohlas, J., Lehmann, N.: Probabilistic Argumentation Systems. In: Kohlas, J., Moral, S. (eds.) Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol. 5. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rogova, G., Llinas, J., Gross, G.: Belief-based hybrid argumentation for threat assessment. In: Proceeding of the 2015 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA2015), March 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Headquarters, Dept of Army, Army Field Manual 5-0, The Operations Process, May 2010Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Croskerry, P.: A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Acad. Med. 84(8), 1022–1028 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Djulbegovic, B., et al.: Dual processing model of medical decision-making. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 12, 94 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Piroli, P., Card, S.: The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst as identified through cognitive task analysis. In: International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, McLean (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein, G., Moon, B., Hoffman, R.R.: Making sense of sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21(5), 88–92 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurtz, C.F., Snowden, D.J.: The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 462–483 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Llinas, J.: Reexamining information fusion–decision making inter-dependencies. In: Proceeding of the IEEE Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA) Conference, San Antonio, March 2014Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson, R.: Analytic Culture in the US Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patterson, E.S., Roth, E.M., Woods, D.D.: Predicting vulnerabilities in computer-supported inferential analysis under data overload. Cogn. Technol. Work 3, 224–237 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zelik, D.J., Patterson, E.S., Woods, D.D.: Measuring attributes of rigor in information analysis. In: Patterson, E.S., Miller, J. (eds.) Macrocognition metrics and scenarios: Design and evaluation for real-world teams. Ashgate Publishers, UK (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Little, E., Rogova, G.: An ontological analysis of threat and vulnerability. In: Proceeding of the FUSION 2006-9th Conference on Multisource Information Fusion (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rogova, G., Llinas, J., Yager, R.: Integration of Argumentation and fusion of soft-hard information for threat assessment. In: Proceeding of the NATO Joint Symposium on Information Fusion (Hard and Soft) For Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hall, D.L., Llinas, J., Nagi, R.: Information fusion and intelligence analysis with hard and soft data: findings from a five-year MURI research program. In: Proceedings of the NATO Symposium on “Information Fusion (Hard and Soft) for ISR” (IST-SET-126) (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Toniolo, A., et al.: Supporting reasoning with different types of evidence in intelligence analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Istanbul, May 2015Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Snidaro, L., Garcia, J., Llinas, J., Blasch, E., (eds.) Context-Enhanced Information Fusion. Springer, London (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations