Qualitative frameworks for decision support: lessons from medicine

Abstract

AbstractSome weaknesses of current decision support technologies are discussed. Numerical methods have strong theoretical foundations but are representationally weak, and only deal with a small part of the decision process. Knowledge-based systems offer greater flexibility, but have not been accompanied by a clear decision theory. Theoretical development of symbolic decision procedures is advocated, an approach to the design of decision support systems based on first-order logic is presented, and work on this approach is reviewed. A central proposal is an extended form of inference called argumentation; reasoning qualitatively for and against decision options from generalized domain theories. Argumentation captures a natural and familiar form of reasoning, and contributes to the robustness, flexibility and intelligibility of problem solving, while having a clear theoretical basis. Argumentation was developed initially for medical applications though it may have much wider applicability.