-
Symbolic Decision Theory and Autonomous Systems
Authors:
John Fox,
Paul J. Krause
Abstract:
The ability to reason under uncertainty and with incomplete information is a fundamental requirement of decision support technology. In this paper we argue that the concentration on theoretical techniques for the evaluation and selection of decision options has distracted attention from many of the wider issues in decision making. Although numerical methods of reasoning under uncertainty have st…
▽ More
The ability to reason under uncertainty and with incomplete information is a fundamental requirement of decision support technology. In this paper we argue that the concentration on theoretical techniques for the evaluation and selection of decision options has distracted attention from many of the wider issues in decision making. Although numerical methods of reasoning under uncertainty have strong theoretical foundations, they are representationally weak and only deal with a small part of the decision process. Knowledge based systems, on the other hand, offer greater flexibility but have not been accompanied by a clear decision theory. We describe here work which is under way towards providing a theoretical framework for symbolic decision procedures. A central proposal is an extended form of inference which we call argumentation; reasoning for and against decision options from generalised domain theories. The approach has been successfully used in several decision support applications, but it is argued that a comprehensive decision theory must cover autonomous decision making, where the agent can formulate questions as well as take decisions. A major theoretical challenge for this theory is to capture the idea of reflection to permit decision agents to reason about their goals, what they believe and why, and what they need to know or do in order to achieve their goals.
△ Less
Submitted 20 March, 2013;
originally announced March 2013.
-
Argumentation as a General Framework for Uncertain Reasoning
Authors:
John Fox,
Paul J. Krause,
Morten Elvang-Gøransson
Abstract:
Argumentation is the process of constructing arguments about propositions, and the assignment of statements of confidence to those propositions based on the nature and relative strength of their supporting arguments. The process is modelled as a labelled deductive system, in which propositions are doubly labelled with the grounds on which they are based and a representation of the confidence atta…
▽ More
Argumentation is the process of constructing arguments about propositions, and the assignment of statements of confidence to those propositions based on the nature and relative strength of their supporting arguments. The process is modelled as a labelled deductive system, in which propositions are doubly labelled with the grounds on which they are based and a representation of the confidence attached to the argument. Argument construction is captured by a generalized argument consequence relation based on the ^,--fragment of minimal logic. Arguments can be aggregated by a variety of numeric and symbolic flattening functions. This approach appears to shed light on the common logical structure of a variety of quantitative, qualitative and defeasible uncertainty calculi.
△ Less
Submitted 6 March, 2013;
originally announced March 2013.
-
Dialectic Reasoning with Inconsistent Information
Authors:
Morten Elvang-Gøransson,
Paul J. Krause,
John Fox
Abstract:
From an inconsistent database non-trivial arguments may be constructed both for a proposition, and for the contrary of that proposition. Therefore, inconsistency in a logical database causes uncertainty about which conclusions to accept. This kind of uncertainty is called logical uncertainty. We define a concept of "acceptability", which induces a means for differentiating arguments. The more ac…
▽ More
From an inconsistent database non-trivial arguments may be constructed both for a proposition, and for the contrary of that proposition. Therefore, inconsistency in a logical database causes uncertainty about which conclusions to accept. This kind of uncertainty is called logical uncertainty. We define a concept of "acceptability", which induces a means for differentiating arguments. The more acceptable an argument, the more confident we are in it. A specific interest is to use the acceptability classes to assign linguistic qualifiers to propositions, such that the qualifier assigned to a propositions reflects its logical uncertainty. A more general interest is to understand how classes of acceptability can be defined for arguments constructed from an inconsistent database, and how this notion of acceptability can be devised to reflect different criteria. Whilst concentrating on the aspects of assigning linguistic qualifiers to propositions, we also indicate the more general significance of the notion of acceptability.
△ Less
Submitted 6 March, 2013;
originally announced March 2013.
-
Is There a Role for Qualitative Risk Assessment?
Authors:
Paul J. Krause,
John Fox,
Philip Judson
Abstract:
Classically, risk is characterized by a point value probability indicating the likelihood of occurrence of an adverse effect. However, there are domains where the attainability of objective numerical risk characterizations is increasingly being questioned. This paper reviews the arguments in favour of extending classical techniques of risk assessment to incorporate meaningful qualitative and weak…
▽ More
Classically, risk is characterized by a point value probability indicating the likelihood of occurrence of an adverse effect. However, there are domains where the attainability of objective numerical risk characterizations is increasingly being questioned. This paper reviews the arguments in favour of extending classical techniques of risk assessment to incorporate meaningful qualitative and weak quantitative risk characterizations. A technique in which linguistic uncertainty terms are defined in terms of patterns of argument is then proposed. The technique is demonstrated using a prototype computer-based system for predicting the carcinogenic risk due to novel chemical compounds.
△ Less
Submitted 20 February, 2013;
originally announced February 2013.
