MARLeME: A Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Model Extraction Library.

Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) en-compasses a powerful class of methodologies that have beenapplied in a wide range of fields. An effective way to furtherempower these methodologies is to develop approaches and toolsthat could expand their interpretability and explainability. Inthis work, we introduce MARLeME: a MARL model extractionlibrary, designed to improve explainability of MARL systemsby approximating them with symbolic models. Symbolic modelsoffer a high degree of interpretability, well-defined properties,and verifiable behaviour. Consequently, they can be used toinspect and better understand the underlying MARL systemsand corresponding MARL agents, as well as to replace all/someof the agents that are particularly safety and security critical.In this work, we demonstrate how MARLeME can be appliedto two well-known case studies (Cooperative Navigation andRoboCup Takeaway), using extracted models based on AbstractArgumentation

Reasoning about Cyber Threat Actors

abstract: Reasoning about the activities of cyber threat actors is critical to defend against cyber attacks. However, this task is difficult for a variety of reasons. In simple terms, it is difficult to determine who the attacker is, what the desired goals are of the attacker, and how they will carry out their attacks. These three questions essentially entail understanding the attacker’s use of deception, the capabilities available, and the intent of launching the attack. These three issues are highly inter-related. If an adversary can hide their intent, they can better deceive a defender. If an adversary’s capabilities are not well understood, then determining what their goals are becomes difficult as the defender is uncertain if they have the necessary tools to accomplish them. However, the understanding of these aspects are also mutually supportive. If we have a clear picture of capabilities, intent can better be deciphered. If we understand intent and capabilities, a defender may be able to see through deception schemes. In this dissertation, I present three pieces of work to tackle these questions to obtain a better understanding of cyber threats. First, we introduce a new reasoning framework to address deception. We evaluate the framework by building a dataset from DEFCON capture-the-flag exercise to identify the person or group responsible for a cyber attack. We demonstrate that the framework not only handles cases of deception but also provides transparent decision making in identifying the threat actor. The second task uses a cognitive learning model to determine the intent – goals of the threat actor on the target system. The third task looks at understanding the capabilities of threat actors to target systems by identifying at-risk systems from hacker discussions on darkweb websites. To achieve this task we gather discussions from more than 300 darkweb websites relating to malicious hacking.Dissertation/ThesisDoctoral Dissertation Computer Engineering 201

On Cognitive Preferences and the Plausibility of Rule-based Models

It is conventional wisdom in machine learning and data mining that logical models such as rule sets are more interpretable than other models, and that among such rule-based models, simpler models are more interpretable than more complex ones. In this position paper, we question this latter assumption by focusing on one particular aspect of interpretability, namely the plausibility of models. Roughly speaking, we equate the plausibility of a model with the likeliness that a user accepts it as an explanation for a prediction. In particular, we argue that, all other things being equal, longer explanations may be more convincing than shorter ones, and that the predominant bias for shorter models, which is typically necessary for learning powerful discriminative models, may not be suitable when it comes to user acceptance of the learned models. To that end, we first recapitulate evidence for and against this postulate, and then report the results of an evaluation in a crowd-sourcing study based on about 3.000 judgments. The results do not reveal a strong preference for simple rules, whereas we can observe a weak preference for longer rules in some domains. We then relate these results to well-known cognitive biases such as the conjunction fallacy, the representative heuristic, or the recogition heuristic, and investigate their relation to rule length and plausibility.Comment: V4: Another rewrite of section on interpretability to clarify focus on plausibility and relation to interpretability, comprehensibility, and justifiabilit

Algorithms for argument systems

Argument systems are computational models that enable an artificial intelligent agent to reason via argumentation. Basically, the computations in argument systems can be viewed as search problems. In general, for a wide range of such problems existing algorithms lack five important features. Firstly, there is no comprehensive study that shows which algorithm among existing others is the most efficient in solving a particular problem. Secondly, there is no work that establishes the use of cost-effective heuristics leading to more efficient algorithms. Thirdly, mechanisms for pruning the search space are understudied, and hence, further pruning techniques might be neglected. Fourthly, diverse decision problems, for extended models of argument systems, are left without dedicated algorithms fine-tuned to the specific requirements of the respective extended model. Fifthly, some existing algorithms are presented in a high level that leaves some aspects of the computations unspecified, and therefore, implementations are rendered open to different interpretations. The work presented in this thesis tries to address all these concerns. Concisely, the presented work is centered around a widely studied view of what computationally defines an argument system. According to this view, an argument system is a pair: a set of abstract arguments and a binary relation that captures the conflicting arguments. Then, to resolve an instance of argument systems the acceptable arguments must be decided according to a set of criteria that collectively define the argumentation semantics. For different motivations there are various argumentation semantics. Equally, several proposals in the literature present extended models that stretch the basic two components of an argument system usually by incorporating more elements and/or broadening the nature of the existing components. This work designs algorithms that solve decision problems in the basic form of argument systems as well as in some other extended models. Likewise, new algorithms are developed that deal with different argumentation semantics. We evaluate our algorithms against existing algorithms experimentally where sufficient indications highlight that the new algorithms are superior with respect to their running time

A Model for an Intelligent Support Decision System in Aquaculture

The paper purpose an intelligent software system agents–based to support decision in aquculture and the approach of fish diagnosis with informatics methods, techniques and solutions. A major purpose is to develop new methods and techniques for quick fish diagnosis, treatment and prophyilaxis at infectious and parasite-based known disorders, that may occur at fishes raised in high density in intensive raising systems. But, the goal of this paper is to presents a model of an intelligent agents-based diagnosis method will be developed for a support decision system.support decision system, diagnosis, multi-agent system, fish diseases

Gaining Insight into Determinants of Physical Activity using Bayesian Network Learning

Contains fulltext : 228326pre.pdf (preprint version ) (Open Access) Contains fulltext : 228326pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BNAIC/BeneLearn 202

Primal-dual approaches to the Steiner problem

We study several old and new algerithms for computing lower and upper bounds for the Steiner problem in networks using dual-ascent and primal-dual strategies. These strategies have been proven to be very useful. for the algorithmic treatment of the Steiner problem. We show that none of the known algorithms can both generate tight lower bounds empirically and guarantee their quality theoretically; and we present a new algorithm which combines both features. The new algorithm has running time O(re log n) and guarantees a ratio of at most two between the generated upper and lower bounds, whereas the fastest previous algorithm with comparably tight empiricalbounds has running time O(e²) without a constant approximation ratio. We show that the approximation ratio two between the bounds can even be achieved in time O(e + n log n), improving the.previous time bound of O(n² log n). The presented insights can also behelpful for the development of further relaxation based approximation algorithms for the Steiner problem