Addressing the Homeland Security Problem: A Collaborative Decision-Making Framework

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2665)


A key underlying problem intelligence agencies face in effectively combating threats to homeland security is the diversity and volume of information that need to be disseminated, analyzed and acted upon. This problem is further exacerbated due to the multitude of agencies involved in the decision-making process. Thus the decision-making processes faced by the intelligence agencies are characterized by group deliberations that are highly ill structured and yield limited analytical tractability. In this context, a collaborative approach to providing cognitive support to decision makers using a connectionist modeling approach is proposed. The connectionist modeling of such decision scenarios offers several unique and significant advantages in developing systems to support collaborative discussions. Several inference rules for augmenting the argument network and to capture implicit notions in arguments are proposed. We further explore the effects of incorporating notions of information source reliability within arguments and the effects thereof.


Inference Rule Connectionist Model Homeland Security Argument Structure National Monument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brookings Institution Project on Homeland Security, available at, 2002 (pages 51–66).
  2. 2.
    Phan Minh Dung: “On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Non-monotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games.” Artificial Intelligence 77(2): 321–358, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feldman, J. A., “A Connectionist Model of Visual Memory,” In G. E. Hinton, and J. A. Anderson (Eds.), Parallel Models of Associative Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feldman, J., and D. Ballard, “Connectionist Models and their Properties,” Cognitive Science, 6, 205–254, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guarino, Nicola. “Formal Ontology and Information Systems,” in N. Guarino (ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems, IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 3–15, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hua, G., and Kimbrough, S., “On Hypermedia Based Argumentation Decision Support Systems,” Decision Support Systems, 22, 259–275, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loui, R. P., “Argument and Arbitration Games.” Workshop on Computational Dialectics, AAAI Conference, 72–83, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kimbrough, S. O., “A Graph Representation for Management of Logic Models,” Decision Support Systems, 2, 27–37, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin, F., and Shoham, Y., “Provably correct theories of action.” Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery. 42(2), 293–320. 1995.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Locks, M. O., “The Logic of Policy as Argument,” Management Science, 31(1), 109–114, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lorenzen, P., Formal Logic, Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1965.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loui, R. P., “Argument and Arbitration Games.” Workshop on Computational Dialectics, AAAI Conference, 72–83, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitroff, I. I., R. O. Mason, and V. P. Barabba, “Policy as Argument-A Logic for Ill-Structured Decision Problems,” Management Science, 28(12), 1391–1404, 1982.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raghu T. S., Ramesh. R., Whinston, A. B., and Ai-Mei Chang, “Collaborative Decision Making: A Connectionist Paradigm for Dialectical Support.” Information Systems Research, 12(4), 363–383, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramesh, R., A. B. Whinston, “Claims, Arguments, and Decisions: Formalisms for Representation, Gaming and Coordination,” Information Systems Research, 5(3), 294–324, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thagard, P., “Explanatory Coherence,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 435–502, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thornber, K. K., “The Fidelity of Fuzzy-logic Inference,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 1(4), 288–297, 1993.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toulmin, S., The Uses of Arguments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1958.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wand, Yair; Storey, Veda C.; and Weber, Ron. “An Ontological Analysis of the Relationship Construct in Conceptual Modeling,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 24(4), 494–528, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.W. P. Carey School of BusinessArizona State UniversityTempe
  2. 2.Department of Management Science & SystemsSchool of Management State University of New York at BuffaloBuffalo
  3. 3.Department of Management Science & Information SystemsUniversity of Texas at AustinAustin

Personalised recommendations