We demonstrate an implementation of Markov Argumentation Random Fields (MARFs), a novel formalism combining elements of formal argumentation theory and probabilistic graphical models. In doing so MARFs provide a principled technique for the merger of probabilistic graphical models and non-monotonic reasoning, supporting human reasoning in ``messy’’ domains where the knowledge about conflicts should be applied. Our implementation takes the form of a graphical tool which supports users in interpreting complex information. We have evaluated our implementation in the domain of intelligence analysis, where analysts must reason and determine likelihoods of events using information obtained from conflicting sources.

We present a method to validate a cognitive model, based on the cognitive architecture ACT-R, in dynamic human-automation systems with discrete human input. We are inspired by the general problem of K-choice games as a proxy for many decision making applications in dynamical systems. We model the human as a Markovian controller based on gathered experimental data, that is, a non-deterministic control input with known likelihoods of control actions associated with certain configurations of the state-space. We use reachability analysis to predict the outcome of the resulting discrete-time stochastic hybrid system, in which the outcome is defined as a function of the system trajectory. We suggest that the resulting expected outcomes can be used to validate the cognitive model against actual human subject data. We apply our method to a two-choice game in which the human is tasked with maximizing net coverage of a robotic swarm that can operate under rendezvous or deployment dynamics. We validate the corresponding ACTR cognitive model generated with the data from eight human subjects. The novelty of this work is (1) a method to compute expected outcome in a hybrid dynamical system with a Markov chain model of the human's discrete choice, and (2) application of this method to validation of cognitive models with a database of actual human subject data.

This paper is concerned with the combination of argumentation with the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. In particular, we show how logical elements of evidence, associated with numerical degrees of belief, can be combined into arguments.

Legacy description not available