Exploiting Domain Knowledge in Making Delegation Decisions

@inproceedings{conf/admi/EmeleNSP11, added-at = {2011-12-19T00:00:00.000+0100}, author = {Emele, Chukwuemeka David and Norman, Timothy J. and Sensoy, Murat and Parsons, Simon}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/20a08b683088443f1fd36d6ef28bf6615/dblp}, booktitle = {ADMI}, crossref = {conf/admi/2011}, editor = {Cao, Longbing and Bazzan, Ana L. C. and Symeonidis, Andreas L. and Gorodetsky, Vladimir and Weiss, Gerhard and Yu, Philip S.}, ee = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27609-5_9}, interhash = {1d7e7f8554e8bdb3d43c32e02aeabcec}, intrahash = {0a08b683088443f1fd36d6ef28bf6615}, isbn = {978-3-642-27608-8}, keywords = {dblp}, pages = {117-131}, publisher = {Springer}, series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science}, timestamp = {2011-12-19T00:00:00.000+0100}, title = {Exploiting Domain Knowledge in Making Delegation Decisions.}, url = {http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/admi/admi2011.html#EmeleNSP11}, volume = 7103, year = 2011 }Postprin

Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker

Pairwise comparison is a popular assessment method either for deriving criteria-weights or for evaluating alternatives according to a given criterion. In real-world applications consistency of the comparisons rarely happens: intransitivity can occur. The aim of the paper is to discuss the relationship between the consistency of the decision maker—described with the error-free property—and the consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix (PCM). The concept of error-free matrix is used to demonstrate that consistency of the PCM is not a sufficient condition of the error-free property of the decision maker. Informed and uninformed decision makers are defined. In the first stage of an assessment method a consistent or near-consistent matrix should be achieved: detecting, measuring and improving consistency are part of any procedure with both types of decision makers. In the second stage additional information are needed to reveal the decision maker’s real preferences. Interactive questioning procedures are recommended to reach that goal

The Adaptation of East Asian Masters Students to Western Norms of Critical Thinking and Argumentation in the U.K.

The paper explores the adaptation experiences of East Asian masters students in the U.K. in dealing with Western academic norms of critical thinking and debate. Through in-depth interviewing, students’ perceptions of their learning experiences were explored, and stages in this adaptation process were identified, with various entry and exit routes. It was found that the majority of the students opt for a ‘Middle Way’ which synergises their own cultural approach to critical thinking with those aspects of Western style critical thinking and debate that are culturally acceptable to them

An Argumentation-Based Reasoner to Assist Digital Investigation and Attribution of Cyber-Attacks

We expect an increase in the frequency and severity of cyber-attacks that comes along with the need for efficient security countermeasures. The process of attributing a cyber-attack helps to construct efficient and targeted mitigating and preventive security measures. In this work, we propose an argumentation-based reasoner (ABR) as a proof-of-concept tool that can help a forensics analyst during the analysis of forensic evidence and the attribution process. Given the evidence collected from a cyber-attack, our reasoner can assist the analyst during the investigation process, by helping him/her to analyze the evidence and identify who performed the attack. Furthermore, it suggests to the analyst where to focus further analyses by giving hints of the missing evidence or new investigation paths to follow. ABR is the first automatic reasoner that can combine both technical and social evidence in the analysis of a cyber-attack, and that can also cope with incomplete and conflicting information. To illustrate how ABR can assist in the analysis and attribution of cyber-attacks we have used examples of cyber-attacks and their analyses as reported in publicly available reports and online literature. We do not mean to either agree or disagree with the analyses presented therein or reach attribution conclusions

A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid

The main advances regarding the use of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid over the last decade are reviewed. They concern mainly a bipolar extension of both the Choquet integral and the Sugeno integral, interesting particular submodels, new learning techniques, a better interpretation of the models and a better use of the Choquet integral in multi-criteria decision aid. Parallel to these theoretical works, the Choquet integral has been applied to many new fields, and several softwares and libraries dedicated to this model have been developed.Choquet integral, Sugeno integral, capacity, bipolarity, preferences

Supporting public decision making in policy deliberations: An ontological approach

This is the post-print version of the Paper. The official published version can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2011 SpringerSupporting public decision making in policy deliberations has been a key objective of eParticipation which is an emerging area of eGovernment. EParticipation aims to enhance citizen involvement in public governance activities through the use of information and communication technologies. An innovative approach towards this objective is exploiting the potentials of semantic web technologies centred on conceptual knowledge models in the form of ontologies. Ontologies are generally defined as explicit human and computer shared views on the world of particular domains. In this paper, the potentials and benefits of using ontologies for policy deliberation processes are discussed. Previous work is then extended and synthesised to develop a deliberation ontology. The ontology aims to define the necessary semantics in order to structure and interrelate the stages and various activities of deliberation processes with legal information, participant stakeholders and their associated arguments. The practical implications of the proposed framework are illustrated.This work is funded by the European Commission under the 2006/1 eParticipation call

Robustness - a challenge also for the 21st century: A review of robustness phenomena in technical, biological and social systems as well as robust approaches in engineering, computer science, operations research and decision aiding

Notions on robustness exist in many facets. They come from different disciplines and reflect different worldviews. Consequently, they contradict each other very often, which makes the term less applicable in a general context. Robustness approaches are often limited to specific problems for which they have been developed. This means, notions and definitions might reveal to be wrong if put into another domain of validity, i.e. context. A definition might be correct in a specific context but need not hold in another. Therefore, in order to be able to speak of robustness we need to specify the domain of validity, i.e. system, property and uncertainty of interest. As proofed by Ho et al. in an optimization context with finite and discrete domains, without prior knowledge about the problem there exists no solution what so ever which is more robust than any other. Similar to the results of the No Free Lunch Theorems of Optimization (NLFTs) we have to exploit the problem structure in order to make a solution more robust. This optimization problem is directly linked to a robustness/fragility tradeoff which has been observed in many contexts, e.g. 'robust, yet fragile' property of HOT (Highly Optimized Tolerance) systems. Another issue is that robustness is tightly bounded to other phenomena like complexity for which themselves exist no clear definition or theoretical framework. Consequently, this review rather tries to find common aspects within many different approaches and phenomena than to build a general theorem for robustness, which anyhow might not exist because complex phenomena often need to be described from a pluralistic view to address as many aspects of a phenomenon as possible. First, many different robustness problems have been reviewed from many different disciplines. Second, different common aspects will be discussed, in particular the relationship of functional and structural properties. This paper argues that robustness phenomena are also a challenge for the 21st century. It is a useful quality of a model or system in terms of the 'maintenance of some desired system characteristics despite fluctuations in the behaviour of its component parts or its environment' (s. [Carlson and Doyle, 2002], p. 2). We define robustness phenomena as solution with balanced tradeoffs and robust design principles and robustness measures as means to balance tradeoffs. --

Developing Argumentation Skills among Undergraduate Students Using Inquiry Led Argument Framework

Teaching of science subjects in developing countries is still geared around traditional methods. This study aimed at teaching science students through scientific argumentation as a newer method for teacher instructors and students in Pakistan. The objectives were to develop argumentation skills in science students using Inquiry Led Argument Framework (ILAF), to explore the effectiveness of the new framework and to assess the quality of arguments generated by students using ILAF. The sample consists of two sections of bio-ethic course in a large public-sector university serving as experimental and control group. Before introducing ILAF in the experimental group, it was carefully designed, validated and pilot tested with the students. The progression in argumentation skill was monitored through written argumentation reports collected during the semester while, the effectiveness of ILAF was found through comparing the students’ academic performance with a control group at the end of semester. ILAF was found effective in developing argumentation skills and improving students’ academic performance as compared to students in the control group. The students’ quality of argument improved with practice. ILAF as a newer approach has the capacity to serve as a useful framework for teacher educators and science teachers in developing argumentation skills in students besides improving their academic performanc