26,490 research outputs found
An Argumentation-Based Reasoner to Assist Digital Investigation and Attribution of Cyber-Attacks
We expect an increase in the frequency and severity of cyber-attacks that
comes along with the need for efficient security countermeasures. The process
of attributing a cyber-attack helps to construct efficient and targeted
mitigating and preventive security measures. In this work, we propose an
argumentation-based reasoner (ABR) as a proof-of-concept tool that can help a
forensics analyst during the analysis of forensic evidence and the attribution
process. Given the evidence collected from a cyber-attack, our reasoner can
assist the analyst during the investigation process, by helping him/her to
analyze the evidence and identify who performed the attack. Furthermore, it
suggests to the analyst where to focus further analyses by giving hints of the
missing evidence or new investigation paths to follow. ABR is the first
automatic reasoner that can combine both technical and social evidence in the
analysis of a cyber-attack, and that can also cope with incomplete and
conflicting information. To illustrate how ABR can assist in the analysis and
attribution of cyber-attacks we have used examples of cyber-attacks and their
analyses as reported in publicly available reports and online literature. We do
not mean to either agree or disagree with the analyses presented therein or
reach attribution conclusions
Improving argumentation-based recommender systems through context-adaptable selection criteria
Recommender Systems based on argumentation represent an important proposal where the recommendation is supported by qualitative information. In these systems, the role of the comparison criterion used to decide between competing arguments is paramount and the possibility of using the most appropriate for a given domain becomes a central issue; therefore, an argumentative recommender system that offers an interchangeable argument comparison criterion provides a significant ability that can be exploited by the user. However, in most of current recommender systems, the argument comparison criterion is either fixed, or codified within the arguments. In this work we propose a formalization of context-adaptable selection criteria that enhances the argumentative reasoning mechanism. Thus, we do not propose of a new type of recommender system; instead we present a mechanism that expand the capabilities of existing argumentation-based recommender systems. More precisely, our proposal is to provide a way of specifying how to select and use the most appropriate argument comparison criterion effecting the selection on the user´s preferences, giving the possibility of programming, by the use of conditional expressions, which argument preference criterion has to be used in each particular situation.Fil: Teze, Juan Carlos Lionel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos; ArgentinaFil: Gottifredi, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: García, Alejandro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin
Dispute Resolution Using Argumentation-Based Mediation
Mediation is a process, in which both parties agree to resolve their dispute
by negotiating over alternative solutions presented by a mediator. In order to
construct such solutions, mediation brings more information and knowledge, and,
if possible, resources to the negotiation table. The contribution of this paper
is the automated mediation machinery which does that. It presents an
argumentation-based mediation approach that extends the logic-based approach to
argumentation-based negotiation involving BDI agents. The paper describes the
mediation algorithm. For comparison it illustrates the method with a case study
used in an earlier work. It demonstrates how the computational mediator can
deal with realistic situations in which the negotiating agents would otherwise
fail due to lack of knowledge and/or resources.Comment: 6 page
A canonical theory of dynamic decision-making
Decision-making behavior is studied in many very different fields, from medicine and eco- nomics to psychology and neuroscience, with major contributions from mathematics and statistics, computer science, AI, and other technical disciplines. However the conceptual- ization of what decision-making is and methods for studying it vary greatly and this has resulted in fragmentation of the field. A theory that can accommodate various perspectives may facilitate interdisciplinary working. We present such a theory in which decision-making is articulated as a set of canonical functions that are sufficiently general to accommodate diverse viewpoints, yet sufficiently precise that they can be instantiated in different ways for specific theoretical or practical purposes. The canons cover the whole decision cycle, from the framing of a decision based on the goals, beliefs, and background knowledge of the decision-maker to the formulation of decision options, establishing preferences over them, and making commitments. Commitments can lead to the initiation of new decisions and any step in the cycle can incorporate reasoning about previous decisions and the rationales for them, and lead to revising or abandoning existing commitments. The theory situates decision-making with respect to other high-level cognitive capabilities like problem solving, planning, and collaborative decision-making. The canonical approach is assessed in three domains: cognitive and neuropsychology, artificial intelligence, and decision engineering
Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach
The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a
formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible
Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the
form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation
inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions.
In DeLP an argumentation formalism will be used for deciding between
contradictory goals. Queries will be supported by arguments that could be
defeated by other arguments. A query q will succeed when there is an argument A
for q that is warranted, ie, the argument A that supports q is found undefeated
by a warrant procedure that implements a dialectical analysis.
The defeasible argumentation basis of DeLP allows to build applications that
deal with incomplete and contradictory information in dynamic domains. Thus,
the resulting approach is suitable for representing agent's knowledge and for
providing an argumentation based reasoning mechanism to agents.Comment: 43 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic
Programming
- …