A structured argumentation framework for detaching conditional obligations

We present a general formal argumentation system for dealing with the detachment of conditional obligations. Given a set of facts, constraints, and conditional obligations, we answer the question whether an unconditional obligation is detachable by considering reasons for and against its detachment. For the evaluation of arguments in favor of detaching obligations we use a Dung-style argumentation-theoretical semantics. We illustrate the modularity of the general framework by considering some extensions, and we compare the framework to some related approaches from the literature.Comment: This is our submission to DEON 2016, including the technical appendi

Optimizing the computation of overriding

We introduce optimization techniques for reasoning in DLN---a recently introduced family of nonmonotonic description logics whose characterizing features appear well-suited to model the applicative examples naturally arising in biomedical domains and semantic web access control policies. Such optimizations are validated experimentally on large KBs with more than 30K axioms. Speedups exceed 1 order of magnitude. For the first time, response times compatible with real-time reasoning are obtained with nonmonotonic KBs of this size

The development of an expert system shell with a mixed knowledge representation, explicit control of reasoning and a truth maintenance system

Bibliography: pages 227-236.This thesis concentrates on several important issues in expert system research, namely - representation of knowledge - control of reasoning - implementation of non-monotonic logics via truth maintenance systems. There are three parts to this thesis. PART1 covers the background research in the above mentioned topics. PART2 discusses the WISE system and the way in which research from PART1 was applied to the development of the WISE shell. PART3 considers the features of other expert system shells

Deontic Logic and Natural Language

There has been a recent surge of work on deontic modality within philosophy of language. This work has put the deontic logic tradition in contact with natural language semantics, resulting in significant increase in sophistication on both ends. This chapter surveys the main motivations, achievements, and prospects of this work

OWL-POLAR : A Framework for Semantic Policy Representation and Reasoning

Peer reviewedPreprin

ESPOONERBAC_{{ERBAC}}: Enforcing Security Policies In Outsourced Environments

Data outsourcing is a growing business model offering services to individuals and enterprises for processing and storing a huge amount of data. It is not only economical but also promises higher availability, scalability, and more effective quality of service than in-house solutions. Despite all its benefits, data outsourcing raises serious security concerns for preserving data confidentiality. There are solutions for preserving confidentiality of data while supporting search on the data stored in outsourced environments. However, such solutions do not support access policies to regulate access to a particular subset of the stored data. For complex user management, large enterprises employ Role-Based Access Controls (RBAC) models for making access decisions based on the role in which a user is active in. However, RBAC models cannot be deployed in outsourced environments as they rely on trusted infrastructure in order to regulate access to the data. The deployment of RBAC models may reveal private information about sensitive data they aim to protect. In this paper, we aim at filling this gap by proposing \textbf{$\mathit{ESPOON_{ERBAC}}$} for enforcing RBAC policies in outsourced environments. $\mathit{ESPOON_{ERBAC}}$ enforces RBAC policies in an encrypted manner where a curious service provider may learn a very limited information about RBAC policies. We have implemented $\mathit{ESPOON_{ERBAC}}$ and provided its performance evaluation showing a limited overhead, thus confirming viability of our approach.Comment: The final version of this paper has been accepted for publication in Elsevier Computers & Security 2013. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1306.482

Argument-based Applications to Knowledge Engineering

Argumentation is concerned with reasoning in the presence of imperfect information by constructing and weighing up arguments. It is an approach for inconsistency management in which conflict is explored rather than eradicated. This form of reasoning has proved applicable to many problems in knowledge engineering that involve uncertain, incomplete or inconsistent knowledge. This paper concentrates on different issues that can be tackled by automated argumentation systems and highlights important directions in argument-oriented research in knowledge engineering. 1 Introduction One of the assumptions underlying the use of classical methods for representation and reasoning is that the information available is complete, certain and consistent. But often this is not the case. In almost every domain, there will be beliefs that are not categorical; rules that are incomplete, with unknown or implicit conditions; and conclusions that are contradictory. Therefore, we need alternative know..

An Empirical Evaluation of the Inferential Capacity of Defeasible Argumentation, Non-monotonic Fuzzy Reasoning and Expert Systems

Several non-monotonic formalisms exist in the field of Artificial Intelligence for reasoning under uncertainty. Many of these are deductive and knowledge-driven, and also employ procedural and semi-declarative techniques for inferential purposes. Nonetheless, limited work exist for the comparison across distinct techniques and in particular the examination of their inferential capacity. Thus, this paper focuses on a comparison of three knowledge-driven approaches employed for non-monotonic reasoning, namely expert systems, fuzzy reasoning and defeasible argumentation. A knowledge-representation and reasoning problem has been selected: modelling and assessing mental workload. This is an ill-defined construct, and its formalisation can be seen as a reasoning activity under uncertainty. An experimental work was performed by exploiting three deductive knowledge bases produced with the aid of experts in the field. These were coded into models by employing the selected techniques and were subsequently elicited with data gathered from humans. The inferences produced by these models were in turn analysed according to common metrics of evaluation in the field of mental workload, in specific validity and sensitivity. Findings suggest that the variance of the inferences of expert systems and fuzzy reasoning models was higher, highlighting poor stability. Contrarily, that of argument-based models was lower, showing a superior stability of its inferences across knowledge bases and under different system configurations. The originality of this research lies in the quantification of the impact of defeasible argumentation. It contributes to the field of logic and non-monotonic reasoning by situating defeasible argumentation among similar approaches of non-monotonic reasoning under uncertainty through a novel empirical comparison