Judicial Evidential Reasoning for Decision Support Applied to Orbit Insertion Failure
Author(s)
Jaunzemis, Andris D.
Minotra, Dev
Holzinger, Marcus J.
Chan, Moses W.
Shenoy, Prakash P.
Advisor(s)
Editor(s)
Collections
Supplementary to:
Permanent Link
Abstract
Realistic decision-making often occurs with insufficient time to gather all possible
evidence before a decision must be rendered, requiring an efficient process for prioritizing
between potential action sequences. This work aims to develop a decision support
system for tasking sensor networks to gather evidence to resolve hypotheses in
the face of ambiguous, incomplete, and uncertain evidence. Studies have shown that
decision-makers demonstrate several biases in decisions involving probability judgement,
so decision-makers must be confident that the evidence-based hypothesis resolution
is strong and impartial before declaring an anomaly or reacting to a conjunction
analysis. Providing decision-makers with the ability to estimate uncertainty and ambiguity
in knowledge has been shown to augment effectiveness. The proposed framework,
judicial evidential reasoning (JER), frames decision-maker questions as rigorously
testable hypotheses and employs an alternating-agent minimax optimization on
belief in the null proposition. This approach values impartiality in addition to time efficiency:
an ideal action sequence gathers evidence to quickly resolve hypotheses
while guarding against bias. JER applies the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions
to model knowledge about hypotheses and quantify ambiguity, and adversarial optimization techniques are used to make many-hypothesis resolution computationally
tractable. This work includes derivation and application of the JER formulation to
a GTO insertion maneuver anomaly scenario.
Sponsor
Date
2017-11
Extent
Resource Type
Text
Resource Subtype
Paper
Rights Statement
Unless otherwise noted, all materials are protected under U.S. Copyright Law and all rights are reserved