Case-Based Argumentation via Process Models
نویسندگان
چکیده
We introduce AHEAD (Analogical Hypothesis Elaborator for Activity Detection), a software system we are developing for the DARPA EELD (Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery) program. AHEAD performs case-based hypothesis elaboration using process models. We are applying AHEAD, which embodies a domain-independent approach, to elaborate hypothesized hostile activities. In this application, AHEAD is given as input (1) structured evidence and (2) a hypothesis concerning the activities of an asymmetric adversary (e.g., a terrorist organization). The system outputs a detailed symbolic argument supporting and/or opposing the given hypothesis. Combining casebased/analogical reasoning techniques, using the FIRE Analogy Server (Forbus, 2001) with qualitative functional processes represented as Task-Method-Knowledge models (Stroulia & Goel, 1995; Goel & Murdock, 1996), AHEAD extracts additional implications of the hypothesis to develop a coherent argument that supports and/or contradicts it. We detail AHEADs design, its role in EELD, its implementation status, and our plans for its evaluation.
منابع مشابه
The Relationship between Iranian EFL Learners’ Linguistic and Logical Intelligences and the Frequency of Fallacies and Evidence in their Argumentative Writing: A Gender-based Study
The learners’ ability to write a well-organized argumentative essay has gained prominence within the last decades. The multiple intelligences play a significant role in enhancing the precision of both language and thought during the writing process. The current study aimed at investigating the possible relationship between linguistic and logical intelligences and the frequency of informal falla...
متن کاملContract - based Negotiation via Argumentation (
Negotiation is often described as the process by which agents come to a mutually acceptable agreement about some subject. This deenition is quite broad, as this process can be viewed from many diierent angles. Here we consider negotiation from the perspective of contracts. We present a general model of contract-based negotiation and propose a logic programming-based argumentation framework to c...
متن کاملAGM Meets Abstract Argumentation: Expansion and Revision for Dung Frameworks
In this paper we combine two of the most important areas of knowledge representation, namely belief revision and (abstract) argumentation. More precisely, we show how AGM-style expansion and revision operators can be defined for Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). Our approach is based on a reformulation of the original AGM postulates for revision in terms of monotonic consequence r...
متن کاملSafety.Lab: Model-Based Domain Specific Tooling for Safety Argumentation
Assurance cases capture the argumentation that a system is safe by putting together pieces of evidence at different levels of abstraction and of different nature. Managing the interdependencies between these artefacts lies at the heart of any safety argument. Keeping the assurance case complete and consistent with the system is a manual and very ressource consuming process. Current tools do not...
متن کامل