A Bayesian Abduction Model For Sensemaking

This research develops a Bayesian Abduction Model for Sensemaking Support (BAMSS) for information fusion in sensemaking tasks. Two methods are investigated. The first is the classical Bayesian information fusion with belief updating (using Bayesian clustering algorithm) and abductive inference. The second method uses a Genetic Algorithm (BAMSS-GA) to search for the k-best most probable explanation (MPE) in the network. Using various data from recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, experimental simulations were conducted to compare the methods using posterior probability values which can be used to give insightful information for prospective sensemaking. The inference results demonstrate the utility of BAMSS as a computational model for sensemaking. The major results obtained are: (1) The inference results from BAMSS-GA gave average posterior probabilities that were 103 better than those produced by BAMSS; (2) BAMSS-GA gave more consistent posterior probabilities as measured by variances; and (3) BAMSS was able to give an MPE while BAMSS-GA was able to identify the optimal values for kMPEs. In the experiments, out of 20 MPEs generated by BAMSS, BAMSS-GA was able to identify 7 plausible network solutions resulting in less amount of information needed for sensemaking and reducing the inference search space by 7/20 (35%). The results reveal that GA can be used successfully in Bayesian information fusion as a search technique to identify those significant posterior probabilities useful for sensemaking. BAMSS-GA was also more robust in overcoming the problem of bounded search that is a constraint to Bayesian clustering and inference state space in BAMSS

A Temporal Framework for Hypergame Analysis of Cyber Physical Systems in Contested Environments

Game theory is used to model conflicts between one or more players over resources. It offers players a way to reason, allowing rationale for selecting strategies that avoid the worst outcome. Game theory lacks the ability to incorporate advantages one player may have over another player. A meta-game, known as a hypergame, occurs when one player does not know or fully understand all the strategies of a game. Hypergame theory builds upon the utility of game theory by allowing a player to outmaneuver an opponent, thus obtaining a more preferred outcome with higher utility. Recent work in hypergame theory has focused on normal form static games that lack the ability to encode several realistic strategies. One example of this is when a player’s available actions in the future is dependent on his selection in the past. This work presents a temporal framework for hypergame models. This framework is the first application of temporal logic to hypergames and provides a more flexible modeling for domain experts. With this new framework for hypergames, the concepts of trust, distrust, mistrust, and deception are formalized. While past literature references deception in hypergame research, this work is the first to formalize the definition for hypergames. As a demonstration of the new temporal framework for hypergames, it is applied to classical game theoretical examples, as well as a complex supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) network temporal hypergame. The SCADA network is an example includes actions that have a temporal dependency, where a choice in the first round affects what decisions can be made in the later round of the game. The demonstration results show that the framework is a realistic and flexible modeling method for a variety of applications

Stochastic Reasoning with Action Probabilistic Logic Programs

In the real world, there is a constant need to reason about the behavior of various entities. A soccer goalie could benefit from information available about past penalty kicks by the same player facing him now. National security experts could benefit from the ability to reason about behaviors of terror groups. By applying behavioral models, an organization may get a better understanding about how best to target their efforts and achieve their goals. In this thesis, we propose action probabilistic logic (or ap-) programs, a formalism designed for reasoning about the probability of events whose inter-dependencies are unknown. We investigate how to use ap-programs to reason in the kinds of scenarios described above. Our approach is based on probabilistic logic programming, a well known formalism for reasoning under uncertainty, which has been shown to be highly flexible since it allows imprecise probabilities to be specified in the form of intervals that convey the inherent uncertainty in the knowledge. Furthermore, no independence assumptions are made, in contrast to many of the probabilistic reasoning formalisms that have been proposed. Up to now, all work in probabilistic logic programming has focused on the problem of entailment, i.e., verifying if a given formula follows from the available knowledge. In this thesis, we argue that other problems also need to be solved for this kind of reasoning. The three main problems we address are: Computing most probable worlds: what is the most likely set of actions given the current state of affairs?; answering abductive queries: how can we effect changes in the environment in order to evoke certain desired actions?; and Reasoning about promises: given the importance of promises and how they are fulfilled, how can we incorporate quantitative knowledge about promise fulfillment in ap-programs? We address different variants of these problems, propose exact and heuristic algorithms to scalably solve them, present empirical evaluations of their performance, and discuss their application in real world scenarios

Backdoors to Normality for Disjunctive Logic Programs

Over the last two decades, propositional satisfiability (SAT) has become one of the most successful and widely applied techniques for the solution of NP-complete problems. The aim of this paper is to investigate theoretically how Sat can be utilized for the efficient solution of problems that are harder than NP or co-NP. In particular, we consider the fundamental reasoning problems in propositional disjunctive answer set programming (ASP), Brave Reasoning and Skeptical Reasoning, which ask whether a given atom is contained in at least one or in all answer sets, respectively. Both problems are located at the second level of the Polynomial Hierarchy and thus assumed to be harder than NP or co-NP. One cannot transform these two reasoning problems into SAT in polynomial time, unless the Polynomial Hierarchy collapses. We show that certain structural aspects of disjunctive logic programs can be utilized to break through this complexity barrier, using new techniques from Parameterized Complexity. In particular, we exhibit transformations from Brave and Skeptical Reasoning to SAT that run in time O(2^k n^2) where k is a structural parameter of the instance and n the input size. In other words, the reduction is fixed-parameter tractable for parameter k. As the parameter k we take the size of a smallest backdoor with respect to the class of normal (i.e., disjunction-free) programs. Such a backdoor is a set of atoms that when deleted makes the program normal. In consequence, the combinatorial explosion, which is expected when transforming a problem from the second level of the Polynomial Hierarchy to the first level, can now be confined to the parameter k, while the running time of the reduction is polynomial in the input size n, where the order of the polynomial is independent of k.Comment: A short version will appear in the Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 27th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'13). A preliminary version of the paper was presented on the workshop Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2012), 5th International Workshop, September 4, 2012, Budapest, Hungar