Arguments for Qualitative Risk Assessment: The StAR Risk Adviser

Calculating risk is relatively straightforward when there is reliable statistical evidence on which to base a judgment. However, novel technologies are often characterised by a lack of such historical data, which creates a problem for risk assessment. In fact, numerical risk assessments can be positively misleading in such situations. We describe a decision support system – StAR – that gives quantitative assessments where appropriate, but which is also able to provide qualitative risk assessments based on arguments for and against the presence of risk. The user is presented with a summary statement of risk, together with the arguments that underlie this assessment. Furthermore, the user is able to search beyond these top-level arguments in order to discover more about the available evidence. Here we suggest that this approach is well-suited to the way in which people naturally make decisions, and we show how the StAR approach has been implemented in the domain of toxicological risk assessment.     

Applying Dialectic Agents to Argumentation in E-Commerce

Reaching an agreement or understanding through argumentation is an important aspect of decision making in a virtual society as well as in our real society. In this paper, we consider compromise (Aufheben) and concession (weaker Aufheben) as a simple form of Hegelian dialectical reasoning, which we think are desiderata to deliberate or cognitive agents. We then propose an argument-based agent system that allows for the issue modification among agents concerned during argumentation and reaching an agreement or understanding through argumentation with the dialectical reasoning capability. We illustrate its potential usefulness by showing applications to seller and buyer agents and traveling salesman agents in e-commerce.     

A LOGIC OF ARGUMENTATION FOR REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY

We present the syntax and proof theory of a logic of argumentation, LA. We also outline the development of a category theoretic semantics for LA. LA is the core of a proof theoretic model for reasoning under uncertainty. In this logic, propositions are labeled with a representation of the arguments which support their validity. Arguments may then be aggregated to collect more information about the potential validity of the propositions of interest. We make the notion of aggregation primitive to the logic, and then define strength mappings from sets of arguments to one of a number of possible dictionaries. This provides a uniform framework which incorporates a number of numerical and symbolic techniques for assigning subjective confidences to propositions on the basis of their supporting arguments. These aggregation techniques are also described with examples.     

一种基于辩论的决策方法研究

为了解决动态开放环境下决策方案可行性论证的难题,将辩论理论与实用推理结合提出了一种新的适用于多属性决策的辩论框架,定义了论据的类型和论据之间可能存在的攻击关系。将基于辩论的多属性决策过程分为用户需求获取、方案可行性论证和可行方案选优3个阶段,通过论据及其攻击关系对方案的可行性进行辩论论证。最后采用一个医疗决策问题对该框架的应用进行了示例说明,结果表明,该框架能够较好的处理信息不完整、不一致条件下的决策问题。     

高大模板工程方案的编制和专家论证及监理

结合具体工程实例,详细地介绍了高大模板工程方案的编制、专家论证及实施监理,得出了该工程在浇筑过程中未出现任何异常情况,高大支模的施工能够在安全和质量保证的前提下顺利完成的结论。     

基于辩论的Agent谈判中威胁及其评价的形式化模型

针对电子商务中Agent间谈判使用最为重要且普遍的威胁的辩论方式进行了研究,提出了一种有关威胁的形式化模型,并结合现实生活中的交易实例进行了说明,以验证此模型的有效性。在此基础上,提出了一种有关威胁的辩论力度的计算的形式化模型,并在做出相关假定和给出相关的假设数据的基础上,以一个算例对模型进行计算和分析,以验证此模型的正确性。最后,得出相关结论,认为其在交易伙伴的选择方面具有传统的谈判方式所无法比拟的优势,并对进一步的研究方向进行了探讨。     

Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, Emerging Themes, and Directions on the Use of Formal Representations in Interactive Systems

This paper reflects on experiences designing, developing, and working with users of a variety of interactive computer systems. The authors propose, based on these experiences, that the cause of a number of unexpected difficulties in human-computer interaction lies in users' unwillingness or inability to make structure, content, or procedures explicit. Besides recounting experiences with system use, this paper discusses why users reject or circumvent formalisms which require such explicit expression, and suggests how system designers can anticipate and compensate for problems users have in making implicit aspects of their tasks explicit. The authors propose computational approaches that address this problem, including incremental and system-assisted formalization mechanisms and methods for recognizing and using undeclared structure; they also propose non-computational solutions that involve designers and users reaching a shared understanding of the task situation and the methods that motivate the formalisms. This paper poses that, while it is impossible to remove all formalisms from computing systems, system designers need to match the level of formal expression entailed with the goals and situation of the users -- a design criteria not commonly mentioned in current interface design.