David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 10 (1):53-77 (2000)
Information is a force multiplier. Knowledge of the enemy''s capability and intentions may be of far more value to a military force than additional troops or firepower. Situation assessment is the ongoing process of inferring relevant information about the forces of concern in a military situation. Relevant information can include force types, firepower, location, and past, present and future course of action. Situation assessment involves the incorporation of uncertain evidence from diverse sources. These include photographs, radar scans, and other forms of image intelligence, or IMINT; electronics intelligence, or ELINT, derived from characteristics (e.g., wavelength) of emissions generated by enemy equipment; communications intelligence, or COMINT, derived from the characteristics of messages sent by the enemy; and reports from human informants (HUMINT). These sources must be combined to form a model of the situation. The sheer volume of data, the ubiquity of uncertainty, the number and complexity of hypotheses to consider, the high-stakes environment, the compressed time frame, and deception and damage from hostile forces, combine to present a staggeringly complex problem. Even if one could formulate a decision problem in reasonable time, explicit determination of an optimal decision policy exceeds any reasonable computational resources. While it is tempting to drop any attempt at rational analysis and rely purely on simple heuristics, we argue that this can lead to catastrophic outcomes. We present an architecture for a ``complex decision machine'''' that performs rational deliberation to make decisions in real time. We argue that resource limits require such an architecture to be grounded in simple heuristic reactive processes. We thus argue that both simple heuristics and complex decision machines are required for effective decision making in real time for complex problems. We describe an implementation of our architecture applied to the problem of military situation assessment.
|Keywords||belief networks knowledge representation agile modeling bounded rationality decision theory|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Mark Colyvan & Katie Steele, Environmental Ethics and Decision Theory: Fellow Travellers or Bitter Enemies?
Igor Douven (2002). Decision Theory and the Rationality of Further Deliberation. Economics and Philosophy 18 (2):303-328.
Peter M. Todd & Gerd Gigerenzer (2000). Précis of Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):727-741.
Alex Voorhoeve & Ken Binmore (2006). Transitivity, the Sorites Paradox, and Similarity-Based Decision-Making. Erkenntnis 64 (1):101-114.
Stephen G. Pauker (1984). Decision Analysis as a Basis for Medical Decision Making: The Tree of Hippocrates. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (2):181-214.
Albertjan Tollenaar, A. T. Marseille & Kars de Graaf, Establishing Facts by the Administrative Judge.
Luca Ferrero (2010). Decisions, Diachronic Autonomy, and the Division of Deliberative Labor. Philosophers' Imprint 10 (2):1-23.
M. R. Yilmaz (1997). In Defense of a Constructive, Information-Based Approach to Decision Theory. Theory and Decision 43 (1):21-44.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #324,729 of 1,793,261 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,804 of 1,793,261 )
How can I increase my downloads?