Neural-Augmented Static Analysis of Android Communication

We address the problem of discovering communication links between applications in the popular Android mobile operating system, an important problem for security and privacy in Android. Any scalable static analysis in this complex setting is bound to produce an excessive amount of false-positives, rendering it impractical. To improve precision, we propose to augment static analysis with a trained neural-network model that estimates the probability that a communication link truly exists. We describe a neural-network architecture that encodes abstractions of communicating objects in two applications and estimates the probability with which a link indeed exists. At the heart of our architecture are type-directed encoders (TDE), a general framework for elegantly constructing encoders of a compound data type by recursively composing encoders for its constituent types. We evaluate our approach on a large corpus of Android applications, and demonstrate that it achieves very high accuracy. Further, we conduct thorough interpretability studies to understand the internals of the learned neural networks.Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE

Strategy Logic with Imperfect Information

We introduce an extension of Strategy Logic for the imperfect-information setting, called SLii, and study its model-checking problem. As this logic naturally captures multi-player games with imperfect information, the problem turns out to be undecidable. We introduce a syntactical class of "hierarchical instances" for which, intuitively, as one goes down the syntactic tree of the formula, strategy quantifications are concerned with finer observations of the model. We prove that model-checking SLii restricted to hierarchical instances is decidable. This result, because it allows for complex patterns of existential and universal quantification on strategies, greatly generalises previous ones, such as decidability of multi-player games with imperfect information and hierarchical observations, and decidability of distributed synthesis for hierarchical systems. To establish the decidability result, we introduce and study QCTL*ii, an extension of QCTL* (itself an extension of CTL* with second-order quantification over atomic propositions) by parameterising its quantifiers with observations. The simple syntax of QCTL* ii allows us to provide a conceptually neat reduction of SLii to QCTL*ii that separates concerns, allowing one to forget about strategies and players and focus solely on second-order quantification. While the model-checking problem of QCTL*ii is, in general, undecidable, we identify a syntactic fragment of hierarchical formulas and prove, using an automata-theoretic approach, that it is decidable. The decidability result for SLii follows since the reduction maps hierarchical instances of SLii to hierarchical formulas of QCTL*ii

Reasoning about Knowledge and Strategies under Hierarchical Information

Two distinct semantics have been considered for knowledge in the context of strategic reasoning, depending on whether players know each other's strategy or not. The problem of distributed synthesis for epistemic temporal specifications is known to be undecidable for the latter semantics, already on systems with hierarchical information. However, for the other, uninformed semantics, the problem is decidable on such systems. In this work we generalise this result by introducing an epistemic extension of Strategy Logic with imperfect information. The semantics of knowledge operators is uninformed, and captures agents that can change observation power when they change strategies. We solve the model-checking problem on a class of "hierarchical instances", which provides a solution to a vast class of strategic problems with epistemic temporal specifications on hierarchical systems, such as distributed synthesis or rational synthesis

Models for CSP with availability information

We consider models of CSP based on recording what events are available as possible alternatives to the events that are actually performed. We present many different varieties of such models. For each, we give a compositional semantics, congruent to the operational semantics, and prove full abstraction and no-junk results. We compare the expressiveness of the different models.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS'10, arXiv:1011.601

Geospatial information infrastructures

Manual of Digital Earth / Editors: Huadong Guo, Michael F. Goodchild, Alessandro Annoni .- Springer, 2020 .- ISBN: 978-981-32-9915-3Geospatial information infrastructures (GIIs) provide the technological, semantic,organizationalandlegalstructurethatallowforthediscovery,sharing,and use of geospatial information (GI). In this chapter, we introduce the overall concept and surrounding notions such as geographic information systems (GIS) and spatial datainfrastructures(SDI).WeoutlinethehistoryofGIIsintermsoftheorganizational andtechnologicaldevelopmentsaswellasthecurrentstate-of-art,andreflectonsome of the central challenges and possible future trajectories. We focus on the tension betweenincreasedneedsforstandardizationandtheever-acceleratingtechnological changes. We conclude that GIIs evolved as a strong underpinning contribution to implementation of the Digital Earth vision. In the future, these infrastructures are challengedtobecomeflexibleandrobustenoughtoabsorbandembracetechnological transformationsandtheaccompanyingsocietalandorganizationalimplications.With this contribution, we present the reader a comprehensive overview of the field and a solid basis for reflections about future developments

Probabilistic Argumentation with Epistemic Extensions and Incomplete Information

Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be ascribed to this assignment. In this paper, we regard the assignment as denoting the belief that an agent has that an argument is justifiable, i.e., that both the premises of the argument and the derivation of the claim of the argument from its premises are valid. This leads to the notion of an epistemic extension which is the subset of the arguments in the graph that are believed to some degree (which we defined as the arguments that have a probability assignment greater than 0.5). We consider various constraints on the probability assignment. Some constraints correspond to standard notions of extensions, such as grounded or stable extensions, and some constraints give us new kinds of extensions