P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson, and M. Patel. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In A. Hunter and S. Parsons, editors, Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, LNAI 1455, pages 138--156. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1998.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....that there may be adverse effects specific to such subjects. The challenge of identifying all possible consequences of proposed actions has received some attention in the Artificial Intelligence community, under the names of possibilistic risk assess from the Aranda word g w erdaje. ment [21, 42] and chance discovery [46] although this work is still very preliminary. The second challenge to case by case determination of error bounds is quantification: assessing the likelihoods of different outcomes, assessing their positive and negative impacts, and assessing the valuations (or ....

....for each. The third requirement of the error bounds deliberation structure listed was the qualitative representation of uncertainty. Recent work in AI has made explicit use of argumentation to represent knowledge uncertainty, arising for example from inconsistent, contested or missing evidence [42, 51]. In this approach, a claim is assigned an uncertainty label from the qualitative linguistic dictionary fOpen, Supported, Plausible, Probable, Acceptedg according to rules such as the following: If is a claim for which no argument has yet been provided by a participant, then is assigned ....

P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson, and M. Patel. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In A. Hunter and S. Parsons, editors, Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, volume 1455 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 138--156. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1998.

....of the arguments presented for and against them in the Agora. Essentially, one could say that claims have more credibility (and hence less uncertainty) the fewer and the weaker are the arguments against them. While any set of labels could be so defined, we drew on earlier work in argumentation [9] and used the set: fAccepted, Probable, Plausible, Supported, Openg, with the elements listed in decreasing order of certainty. For example, a claim was regarded as Probable at a particular time if at least one consistent argument had been presented for it in the Agora by that time, but no ....

P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson, and M. Patel. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In A. Hunter and S. Parsons, editors, Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, LNAI 1455, pages 138--156. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1998.

....of dictionary labels by participants in the Agora. In particular, the labels assigned to the conclusions and consequences of arguments are not constrained by those assigned to premises or rules of inference. Example 1: The generic argumentation dictionary defined for assessment of risk by [44] is an example of a linguistic dictionary for statements about claims, grounds or consequences, comprising the set: fCertain, Confirmed, Probable, Plausible, Supported, Openg. The elements of this dictionary are listed in descending order, with each successive label indicating a weaker belief in ....

....Because we wish to model dialectical discourse, we have instead chosen to assign the Agora s modalities on the basis of the existence of arguments for and against the claim. To do this, we draw on the generic argumentation dictionary for 25 debates about carcinogenicity of chemicals presented in [44], which is also derived from Toulmin s [75] schema. However, we modify this work to allow for responses to counter arguments to claims. We begin by defining certain relationships between arguments followed by the Claims Dictionary for the Agora, and our definitions assign the Agora a status in the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson, and M. Patel. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In A. Hunter and S. Parsons, editors, Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1455, pages 138--156. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1998.

....requiring clarification or elicitation. There may be incomplete knowledge of the outcomes of the various options under consideration, a situation which Hansson (1996) refers to as delimitation uncertainty and which is sometimes referred to in artificial intelligence as possibilistic risk. (Krause et al. 1998) And so on. Group 2 7 Practical Reasoning Some idea of the complexity required for a comprehensive system for rational guidance for human decision making can be gathered from John L. Pollock s computational architecture for an autonomous rational agent, which he dubs OSCAR (Pollock 1995, 1999) ....

.... of uncertainty in environmental risk decisions (Hansson 1995) called uncertainty arising from the lack of complete knowledge of possible outcomes Delimitation Group 2 19 Practical Reasoning Uncertainty , and in the Artificial Intelligence community it is known as Possibilistic Risk Assessment (Krause et al. 1998, Fox 1999) Further, given a proposed consideration, how can one check whether it is relevant, positively or negatively Hitchcock has proposed a method of refutation by logical analogy of claims to relevance of a consideration in conductive reasoning (Hitchcock 1994) For example, if someone ....

Krause, P., J. Fox, P. Judson and M. Patel (1998). "Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need." In: A. Hunter and S. Parsons (Editors): Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms.

....foodstuffs. 4 Although rarely stated as such, these debates often include attacks by par 1 As an example, Gibney et al. 22] use decision theory in an automated electronic auction system for allocation of telecommunications bandwidth. 2 For instance, John Fox and his colleagues [17, 18, 36] have demonstrated the difficulty in practical risk assessment of the very first task in this formalism, that of articulating the consequences of alternative actions. 3 For example, the toxic impacts of thalidomide were first noticed by practicing doctors. Although the drug had undergone animal ....

.... other labels for claim argument pairs, such as the values of world states and the consequences of actions arising from the claim [20] With such formal calculi, argumentation can be used in intelligent computer systems, and has been so used, particularly in the medical and legal domains (e.g. see [20, 36, 75]) This view of argumentation presents the arguments as disembodied cases for and against a proposition. It is as if there were just one person in the debate, weighing the pros and cons with him or herself to arrive at a considered conclusion. Indeed, the carcinogenicity risk assessment ....

P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson, and M. Patel. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In A. Hunter and S. Parsons, editors, Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, pages 138--156. Springer Verlag (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1455), Berlin, Germany, 1998.

.... the experimental subjects were pregnant, presumably because the possibility of differential harm was not considered (Teff Munro, 1976) Recently, researchers in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have proposed the use of argumentation based procedures for this problem of possibilistic risk assessment (Krause et al. 1998; Fox, 1999) Secondly, even when the possible consequences of new substances are believed known, assessment and quantification of risks is often problematic and invariably subjective (USA EPA, 1996; Shere, 1995; Rhomberg, 1997; Toll, 1999) In many cases, the scientific evidence upon which ....

Krause, P.; Fox, J.; Judson, P.; and Patel, M. 1998. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In Hunter, A., and Parsons, S., eds., Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag (LNAI 1455). 138--156.

....of dictionary labels by participants in the Agora. In particular, the labels assigned to the conclusions and consequences of arguments are not constrained by those assigned to premises or rules of inference. Example 1: The generic argumentation dictionary defined for assessment of risk by (Krause et al. 1998) is an example of a linguistic dictionary for statements about claims, grounds or consequences, comprising the set: fCertain, Confirmed, Probable, Plausible, Supported, Openg. The elements of this dictionary are listed in descending order, with each successive label indicating a weaker belief in ....

....Because we wish to model dialectical discourse, we have instead chosen to assign Nature s modalities on the basis of the existence of arguments for and against the claim. To do this, we draw on the generic argumentation dictionary for debates about carcinogenicity of chemicals presented in (Krause et al. 1998), which is based on Toulmin s (1958) schema. We begin by defining certain relationships between arguments and then the Claims Dictionary for Nature. Definition 7: An argument A( G; R; is consistent if G = 0 ; 1 ; 1 ; 2 ; n 2 ; n 1 ; n 1 ) is consistent, that is if ....

Krause, P.; Fox, J.; Judson, P.; and Patel, M. 1998. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In Hunter, A., and Parsons, S., eds., Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, LNAI 1455. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. 138--156.

No context found.

P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson, and M. Patel. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In A. Hunter and S. Parsons, editors, Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, LNAI 1455, pages 138--156. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1998.

No context found.

P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson, and M. Patel. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In A. Hunter and S. Parsons, editors, Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, LNAI 1455, pages 138--156. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1998.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC