Errors and Intricacies Solved by Formalization in Athena and Slate
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 16

Errors and Intricacies Solved by Formalization in Athena and Slate PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 89 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Errors and Intricacies Solved by Formalization in Athena and Slate. CHART G Case Study 4 – The Sign of the Crescent. Selmer Bringsjord, Eric Pratt, Andrew Shilliday, Joshua Taylor Rensselaer AI & Reasoning (RAIR) Laboratory Department of Cognitive Science Department of Computer Science

Download Presentation

Errors and Intricacies Solved by Formalization in Athena and Slate

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Errors and intricacies solved by formalization in athena and slate

Errors and Intricacies Solved by Formalization in Athena and Slate

CHART G

Case Study 4 – The Sign of the Crescent

Selmer Bringsjord, Eric Pratt,

Andrew Shilliday, Joshua Taylor

Rensselaer AI & Reasoning (RAIR) Laboratory

Department of Cognitive Science

Department of Computer Science

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)

Troy NY 12180 US

07.20.05


Errors and intricacies solved by formalization in athena and slate

H: Coordinated terrorist actions are planned to take place at 0900 hrs on 30 April 2003 in Boston Harbor, at the Amtrak station in Atlanta, Georgia, and at the New York Stock Exchange.

A3: A C-4 plastic explosive bomb placed in a vending machine will be detonated at 0900 hrs on 30 April 2003 at the New York Stock Exchange.


Errors and intricacies solved by formalization in athena and slate

  • When constructing arguments, if there is no commitment to or awareness of deductive logic, confusion and errors can easily occur.

  • Since, when an intelligence analyst is reading through a body of data, he/she essentially adds each item to a global mental assumption base that can be drawn on later, the analyst will often assume the same approach will be taken by the reader of his/her report justifying a particular threat.

  • This means the analyst may cite an item once, assume in later arguments that we remember the item, and silently use it in an inference.

  • This is done very often in Case Study 4!


An example from chart g

An Example from Chart G

This argument concludes proposition 161, that Hani al Halak is a source of explosives (specifically C-4) for terrorists.


An example from chart g1

An Example from Chart G

It would also help if we knew that Muhammed bin Harazi is a terrorist, but this is only

directly justified in Chart C and then

assumed later on, so we’ll make do

with what we have in Chart G.

We need to know this in order to infer that if someone pays Hani al Halak, that person is buying explosives!

161: Hani al Halak is a source of explosives for terrorists.

164: A check in the amount of $8500, drawn on a bank account of Muhammed bin Harazi, was deposited in a bank account held by Hani al Halak on 16 April 2003.

?

166: The $8500 paid by Muhammed bin Harazi to Hani al Halak was a payment for C-4 plastic explosive.


How this leads to reorganization

How This Leads to Reorganization

168: Hamid Alwan kept the C-4 plastic explosive until he was ready to use it.

167: Hamid Alwan picked up a quantity of C-4 plastic explosive from Hani al Halak.

X

161: Hani al Halak is a source of explosives for terrorists.

As we look at the rest of the inferences in the chart and similar errors are found, we tend to find that propositions like 161 don’t support the conclusions the chart had them supporting.


How this leads to reorganization1

How This Leads to Reorganization

168: Hamid Alwan kept the C-4 plastic explosive until he was ready to use it.

167: Hamid Alwan picked up a quantity of C-4 plastic explosive from Hani al Halak.

161: Hani al Halak is a source of explosives for terrorists.

As we look at the rest of the inferences in the chart and similar errors are found, we tend to find that propositions like 161 don’t support the conclusions the chart had them supporting.


How this leads to reorganization2

How This Leads to Reorganization


On a chart wide scale

On a Chart-Wide Scale…

X

X

X

X


On a chart wide scale1

On a Chart-Wide Scale…

Note how propositions to the left are repeatedly needed to support inferences to the right!


Errors and intricacies solved by formalization in athena and slate

  • These necessary changes for a deductive formalization are indicative of the errors caused by familiarity with a scenario and assumption of left-to-right processing.

  • After reading the entire original chart, a person would be able to understand the justification for the conclusions, but the lack of a solid argument structure would make the line of reasoning difficult to follow until the entire chart had been read.

  • As intelligence reports should be clearly structured and supported for easy understanding and direct examination, it is necessary to create them in an environment that imposes a clear argument structure.


Errors and intricacies solved by formalization in athena and slate

This is where Slate comes in.


Errors and intricacies solved by formalization in athena and slate

  • Slate provides an environment in which one can construct easily manipulable argument diagrams.

  • Validation of arguments and consistency checking in Slate is simple.

  • The diagrammatic nature of Slate allows the user to follow lines of reasoning while also remaining firmly grounded in logic.


Errors and intricacies solved by formalization in athena and slate

The dotted line in this inference means that parts of Chart H are used as justification, but not proposition 128 itself.

Chart H

As you can see, this means we found some of the conclusions in Chart H to be superfluous to the overall argument, and that proposition 128 does not support proposition 129.


Errors and intricacies solved by formalization in athena and slate

The End


  • Login