Making Informed Decisions with Provenance and Argumentation Schemes
نویسندگان
چکیده
Intelligence analysis is the process of reasoning about information in order to produce hypothetical explanations for a situation. In this process, it is fundamental to assess how, when, and where this information has been elaborated. A model of provenance can capture this contextual information. Provenance data inevitably affects the identification of plausible conclusions, thus, it must be introduced in the reasoning process. In this paper, we propose a model of argument schemes that allows software agents to explore provenance for improving the information assessment. Argument schemes present the essential elements of provenance that warrant the credibility of the information. Schemes are also used to establish preferences between pieces of information according to different provenance criteria, such as timeliness and reliability. The introduction of schemes about provenance facilitates the decision-making process by providing a rational method to assess the credibility of a piece of information and to resolve conflicting information.
منابع مشابه
Merging Deductive and Abductive Knowledge Bases: An Argumentation Context Approach
The consideration of heterogenous knowledge sources for supporting decision making is key to accomplish informed decisions, e.g., about medical diagnosis. Consequently, merging different data from different knowledge bases is a key issue for providing support for decision-making. In this paper, we explore an argumentation context approach, which follows how medical professionals typically reaso...
متن کاملMulti-Agent Decision Making with Assumption-based Argumentation
Much research has been devoted in recent years to argumentationbased decision making. However, less attention has been given to argumentation-based decision making amongst multiple agents. We present a multi-agent decision framework based on Assumptionbased Argumentation. In our model, agents have goals and decisions have attributes which satisfy goals. Our framework supports agents with differ...
متن کاملProvenance of Decisions in Emergency Response Environments
Mitigating the devastating ramifications of major disasters requires emergency workers to respond in a maximally efficient way. Information systems can improve their efficiency by organizing their efforts and automating many of their decisions. However, absence of documenting how decisions were made by the system prevents decisions from being reviewed to check the reasons for their making or th...
متن کاملDecision Making with Assumption-Based Argumentation
In this paper, we present two different formal frameworks for representing decision making. In both frameworks, decisions have multiple attributes and meet different goals. In the second framework, decisions take into account preferences over goals. We also study a family of decision functions representing making decisions with different criteria, including decisions meeting all goals, most goa...
متن کاملDialogical two-agent decision making with assumption-based argumentation
Much research has been devoted in recent years to argumentationbased decision making. However, less attention has been given to argumentation-based decision making amongst multiple agents. We present a multi-agent decision framework based on Assumptionbased Argumentation. In our model, agents have goals and decisions have attributes which satisfy goals. Our framework supports agents with differ...
متن کامل