Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a novel framework for analytic abduction that emphasizes a non-greedy, risk-sensitive approach to human-AI coordination by employing a $\kappa$-$\tau$ apparatus to manage epistemic interactions and commitment thresholds. The core innovation, the causal cluster, captures the interplay of latent factors in complex scenarios, allowing for a structured representation of competing hypotheses and their plausibility. By applying this framework to epidemiological crises and cyber threat analysis, the authors demonstrate its ability to enhance decision-making by providing multiple plausible scenarios rather than a single conclusion, thus improving the legibility of reasoning processes in uncertain environments.
Competing explanatory scenarios, rather than a single imposed answer, empower decision-makers to navigate uncertainty with clarity and confidence.
Abductive reasoning operates in two directions. The synthetic mode builds explanations from available hypotheses; the analytic mode, conversely, identifies the latent factors whose interaction accounts for a complex observed state. This paper develops the analytic mode as a non-greedy, risk-sensitive discipline of commitment, in which candidate factors coexist and interact, resolving into committed conclusions only when explicit governance conditions are met. The formal core is the $\kappa$-$\tau$ apparatus: $\kappa$ encodes the epistemic interaction among hypotheses, and $\tau$ sets a commitment threshold calibrated to the decision's stakes. The central contribution is the causal cluster, a structured object recording which latent factors participate in a decomposition, with what weights and interaction structure, together with a two-level architecture (intra-cluster $\kappa^*$, inter-cluster $\kappa^{**}$) that guards against causal misattribution. Demonstrated in epidemiological crisis decomposition and adversarial cyber threat analysis, the framework's contribution to human-AI reasoning is the legibility of suspended decomposition as a shared coordination object, providing structural resistance to premature convergence. In practice, the decision-maker is handed not a single imposed answer but the competing explanatory scenarios, weighted by plausibility and paired with the evidence that would resolve between them, so that sound action is possible even before the ambiguity is resolved.