Frictionless Authentication Systems: Emerging Trends, Research Challenges and Opportunities

Authentication and authorization are critical security layers to protect a wide range of online systems, services and content. However, the increased prevalence of wearable and mobile devices, the expectations of a frictionless experience and the diverse user environments will challenge the way users are authenticated. Consumers demand secure and privacy-aware access from any device, whenever and wherever they are, without any obstacles. This paper reviews emerging trends and challenges with frictionless authentication systems and identifies opportunities for further research related to the enrollment of users, the usability of authentication schemes, as well as security and privacy trade-offs of mobile and wearable continuous authentication systems.Comment: published at the 11th International Conference on Emerging Security Information, Systems and Technologies (SECURWARE 2017

Anticipation and Risk – From the inverse problem to reverse computation

Abstract. Risk assessment is relevant only if it has predictive relevance. In this sense, the anticipatory perspective has yet to contribute to more adequate predictions. For purely physics-based phenomena, predictions are as good as the science describing such phenomena. For the dynamics of the living, the physics of the matter making up the living is only a partial description of their change over time. The space of possibilities is the missing component, complementary to physics and its associated predictions based on probabilistic methods. The inverse modeling problem, and moreover the reverse computation model guide anticipatory-based predictive methodologies. An experimental setting for the quantification of anticipation is advanced and structural measurement is suggested as a possible mathematics for anticipation-based risk assessment

Evaluating the Impact of Defeasible Argumentation as a Modelling Technique for Reasoning under Uncertainty

Limited work exists for the comparison across distinct knowledge-based approaches in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for non-monotonic reasoning, and in particular for the examination of their inferential and explanatory capacity. Non-monotonicity, or defeasibility, allows the retraction of a conclusion in the light of new information. It is a similar pattern to human reasoning, which draws conclusions in the absence of information, but allows them to be corrected once new pieces of evidence arise. Thus, this thesis focuses on a comparison of three approaches in AI for implementation of non-monotonic reasoning models of inference, namely: expert systems, fuzzy reasoning and defeasible argumentation. Three applications from the fields of decision-making in healthcare and knowledge representation and reasoning were selected from real-world contexts for evaluation: human mental workload modelling, computational trust modelling, and mortality occurrence modelling with biomarkers. The link between these applications comes from their presumptively non-monotonic nature. They present incomplete, ambiguous and retractable pieces of evidence. Hence, reasoning applied to them is likely suitable for being modelled by non-monotonic reasoning systems. An experiment was performed by exploiting six deductive knowledge bases produced with the aid of domain experts. These were coded into models built upon the selected reasoning approaches and were subsequently elicited with real-world data. The numerical inferences produced by these models were analysed according to common metrics of evaluation for each field of application. For the examination of explanatory capacity, properties such as understandability, extensibility, and post-hoc interpretability were meticulously described and qualitatively compared. Findings suggest that the variance of the inferences produced by expert systems and fuzzy reasoning models was higher, highlighting poor stability. In contrast, the variance of argument-based models was lower, showing a superior stability of its inferences across different system configurations. In addition, when compared in a context with large amounts of conflicting information, defeasible argumentation exhibited a stronger potential for conflict resolution, while presenting robust inferences. An in-depth discussion of the explanatory capacity showed how defeasible argumentation can lead to the construction of non-monotonic models with appealing properties of explainability, compared to those built with expert systems and fuzzy reasoning. The originality of this research lies in the quantification of the impact of defeasible argumentation. It illustrates the construction of an extensive number of non-monotonic reasoning models through a modular design. In addition, it exemplifies how these models can be exploited for performing non-monotonic reasoning and producing quantitative inferences in real-world applications. It contributes to the field of non-monotonic reasoning by situating defeasible argumentation among similar approaches through a novel empirical comparison

Examining the Modelling Capabilities of Defeasible Argumentation and non-Monotonic Fuzzy Reasoning

Knowledge-representation and reasoning methods have been extensively researched within Artificial Intelligence. Among these, argumentation has emerged as an ideal paradigm for inference under uncertainty with conflicting knowledge. Its value has been predominantly demonstrated via analyses of the topological structure of graphs of arguments and its formal properties. However, limited research exists on the examination and comparison of its inferential capacity in real-world modelling tasks and against other knowledge-representation and non-monotonic reasoning methods. This study is focused on a novel comparison between defeasible argumentation and non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning when applied to the representation of the ill-defined construct of human mental workload and its assessment. Different argument-based and non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning models have been designed considering knowledge-bases of incremental complexity containing uncertain and conflicting information provided by a human reasoner. Findings showed how their inferences have a moderate convergent and face validity when compared respectively to those of an existing baseline instrument for mental workload assessment, and to a perception of mental workload self-reported by human participants. This confirmed how these models also reasonably represent the construct under consideration. Furthermore, argument-based models had on average a lower mean squared error against the self-reported perception of mental workload when compared to fuzzy-reasoning models and the baseline instrument. The contribution of this research is to provide scholars, interested in formalisms on knowledge-representation and non-monotonic reasoning, with a novel approach for empirically comparing their inferential capacity

A Qualitative Investigation of the Degree of Explainability of Defeasible Argumentation and Non-monotonic Fuzzy Reasoning

Defeasible argumentation has advanced as a solid theoretical research discipline for inference under uncertainty. Scholars have predominantly focused on the construction of argument-based models for demonstrating non-monotonic reasoning adopting the notions of arguments and conflicts. However, they have marginally attempted to examine the degree of explainability that this approach can offer to explain inferences to humans in real-world applications. Model explanations are extremely important in areas such as medical diagnosis because they can increase human trustworthiness towards automatic inferences. In this research, the inferential processes of defeasible argumentation and non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning are meticulously described, exploited and qualitatively compared. A number of properties have been selected for such a comparison including understandability, simulatability, algorithmic transparency, post-hoc interpretability, computational complexity and extensibility. Findings show how defeasible argumentation can lead to the construction of inferential non-monotonic models with a higher degree of explainability compared to those built with fuzzy reasoning

Applying concepts of fuzzy cognitive mapping to model IT/IS investment evaluation factors

The justification process is a major concern for many organisations that are considering the adoption of Information Technology (IT) and Information Systems (IS), and is a barrier to its implementation. As a result, the competitive advantage of many companies is being put at risk because of management's inability to evaluate the holistic implication of adopting new technology, both in terms of on the benefit and cost portfolios. This paper identifies a number of well-known project appraisal techniques used in IT/IS investment justification. Furthermore, the concept of multivalent, or fuzzy logic, is used to demonstrate how inter-relationships can be modeled between key dimensions identified in the proposed conceptual evaluation model. This is highlighted using fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) as a technique to model each IT/IS evaluation factor (integrating strategic, tactical, operational and investment considerations). The use of an FCM is then shown to be as a complementary tool which can serve to highlight interdependencies between contributory justification factors

Hierarchical fuzzy logic systems and controlling vehicles in computer games

This paper presents a possible application of fuzzy logic systems to control vehicles in computer games. A new architecture of a fuzzy logic system is here proposed: Hierarchical Fuzzy Controller, that is composed of several fuzzy controllers in their classic meaning. ”Hierarchical” means that fuzzy sets produced as output of one of fuzzy controllers are then processed as input of another fuzzy controller. The use of such a controller significantly enhances the possibilities of computational intelligence methods in singleplayer games, i.e. where the enemy is controlled by an agent simulating real behaviour (movement, decisions, etc.). The proposal of an original architecture of Hierarchical Fuzzy Controller, built with fuzzy controllers (in the sense of Mamdani), and discussing advantages of using this architecture to control military vehicles in a 2D single-player game, in comparison to classic fuzzy controllers, are the main scope of the paper