[Paper Review] Formalizing Scenario Analysis

Peter McBurney, Simon Parsons|arXiv (Cornell University)|Dec 12, 2012

Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation15 references3 citations

TL;DR

This paper formalizes scenario analysis within a dialectical argumentation framework for qualitative reasoning under uncertainty. It extends prior work on argumentation in Agoras by introducing structured scenarios to assign qualitative uncertainty labels to propositions across multiple hypothetical situations, enabling systematic comparison and analysis of uncertain outcomes in complex reasoning contexts.

ABSTRACT

We propose a formal treatment of scenarios in the context of a dialectical argumentation formalism for qualitative reasoning about uncertain propositions. Our formalism extends prior work in which arguments for and against uncertain propositions were presented and compared in interaction spaces called Agoras. We now define the notion of a scenario in this framework and use it to define a set of qualitative uncertainty labels for propositions across a collection of scenarios. This work is intended to lead to a formal theory of scenarios and scenario analysis.

Motivation & Objective

• To develop a formal theory of scenarios within dialectical argumentation for uncertain propositions.
• To extend the Agora framework to support structured scenario representation and comparison.
• To enable qualitative uncertainty labeling of propositions across multiple scenarios.
• To provide a foundation for systematic scenario analysis in uncertain reasoning tasks.
• To support decision-making under uncertainty through formalized scenario-based reasoning.

Proposed method

• Introduces a formal definition of a scenario as a structured set of assumptions and conditions within the argumentation framework.
• Uses the Agora model to represent arguments for and against propositions in a dialectical setting.
• Defines uncertainty labels (e.g., likely, unlikely, neutral) for propositions based on their status across multiple scenarios.
• Applies a qualitative reasoning approach to evaluate proposition truth-values under different scenario conditions.
• Establishes a mapping from scenarios to uncertainty labels to support comparative analysis.
• Integrates scenario-based reasoning into a formal theory of argumentation for uncertain knowledge.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 How can scenarios be formally defined within a dialectical argumentation framework for uncertain propositions?
• RQ2 What mechanisms enable the assignment of qualitative uncertainty labels to propositions across multiple scenarios?
• RQ3 How can the interaction between arguments and scenarios be structured to support systematic scenario analysis?
• RQ4 What formal criteria ensure consistency and coherence in scenario-based uncertainty labeling?
• RQ5 How does the integration of scenarios enhance the expressiveness and utility of argumentation systems in uncertain reasoning?

Key findings

• The paper successfully formalizes scenarios as structured contexts within an argumentation framework, enabling systematic reasoning over multiple hypothetical situations.
• It introduces a mechanism to assign qualitative uncertainty labels (e.g., likely, unlikely) to propositions based on their behavior across scenarios.
• The framework supports comparative analysis of arguments by evaluating their validity and strength under different scenario conditions.
• The approach enhances the expressiveness of argumentation systems by incorporating scenario-based uncertainty assessment.
• The formal theory provides a foundation for future extensions to decision support and risk analysis in uncertain domains.
• The work demonstrates feasibility and coherence of integrating scenario analysis into dialectical argumentation for qualitative reasoning.