Belief-based hybrid argumentation for threat assessment

This paper describes a mixed-initiative model of knowledge discovery capable of monitoring a dynamic environment, in which uncertain and unreliable messages can be reasoned over for recognizing human activities and predicting likely threats. The model represents “an argument assistant” helping an analyst in argument production by considering pro and contra arguments from uncertain transient information while seeing each piece of this information as an element of alternative stories (hypotheses based on “what might happen”). These hypotheses are evaluated within the framework of the Transferable Belief Model by assigning beliefs to each argument, combining these beliefs, and selecting a story (hypothesis) based on the highest pignistic probability. Anytime decision making provides decision quality control by weighing time and hypothesis credibility.

[1]  Chris Reed,et al.  Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[2]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Galina L. Rogova,et al.  Adaptive real-time threat assessment under uncertainty and conflict , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Inter-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA).

[5]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  Abstract Argumentation Systems , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Shlomo Zilberstein,et al.  Using Anytime Algorithms in Intelligent Systems , 1996, AI Mag..

[7]  Jeffrey A. Barnett,et al.  Computational Methods for a Mathematical Theory of Evidence , 1981, IJCAI.

[8]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence , 2009 .

[9]  Rolf Haenni,et al.  Probabilistic Argumentation Systems , 2003 .

[10]  Philippe Smets,et al.  Target identification based on the transferable belief model interpretation of dempster-shafer model , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[11]  Sushant S. Khopkar,et al.  Data association and graph analytical processing of hard and soft intelligence data , 2013, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[12]  Peter D. Scott,et al.  Reasoning about situations in the early post-disaster response environment , 2006, 2006 9th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[13]  Galina L. Rogova,et al.  An Ontological Analysis of Threat and Vulnerability , 2006, 2006 9th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[14]  Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont,et al.  Argumentation and education : theoretical foundations and practices , 2009 .

[15]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Assumption-Based Argumentation , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[16]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Computing Arguments and Attacks in Assumption-Based Argumentation , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[17]  John D. Lowrance,et al.  Template-Based Structured Argumentation , 2008 .

[18]  James Llinas,et al.  Graphical methods for real-time fusion and estimation with soft message data , 2008, 2008 11th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[19]  P. Smets Data fusion in the transferable belief model , 2000, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Fusion.

[20]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .