Addressing the Homeland Security Problem: A Collaborative Decision-Making Framework
- 1.4k Downloads
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.
KeywordsInference Rule Connectionist Model Homeland Security Argument Structure National Monument
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Brookings Institution Project on Homeland Security, available at http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/fp/projects/homeland/report.htm, 2002 (pages 51–66).
- 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
- 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
- 7.Loui, R. P., “Argument and Arbitration Games.” Workshop on Computational Dialectics, AAAI Conference, 72–83, 1994.Google Scholar
- 10.Locks, M. O., “The Logic of Policy as Argument,” Management Science, 31(1), 109–114, 1985.Google Scholar
- 11.Lorenzen, P., Formal Logic, Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1965.Google Scholar
- 12.Loui, R. P., “Argument and Arbitration Games.” Workshop on Computational Dialectics, AAAI Conference, 72–83, 1994.Google Scholar
- 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
- 18.Toulmin, S., The Uses of Arguments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1958.Google Scholar