Management of security policies has become increasingly difficult given the number of domains to manage, taken into consideration their extent and their complexity. Security experts has to deal with a variety of frameworks and specification languages used in different domains that may belong to any Cloud Computing or Distributed Systems. This wealth of frameworks and languages make the management task and the interpretation of the security policies so difficult. Each approach provides its own conflict management method or tool, the security expert will be forced to manage all these tools, which makes the field maintenance and time consuming expensive. In order to hide this complexity and to facilitate some security experts tasks and automate the others, we propose a security policies aligning based on ontologies process; this process enables to detect and resolve security policies conflicts and to support security experts in managing tasks.

We present a principled approach for detecting overlapping temporal community structure in dynamic networks. Our method is based on the following framework: find the overlapping temporal community structure that maximizes a quality function associated with each snapshot of the network subject to a temporal smoothness constraint. A novel quality function and a smoothness constraint are proposed to handle overlaps, and a new convex relaxation is used to solve the resulting combinatorial optimization problem. We provide theoretical guarantees as well as experimental results that reveal community structure in real and synthetic networks. Our main insight is that certain structures can be identified only when temporal correlation is considered and when communities are allowed to overlap. In general, discovering such overlapping temporal community structure can enhance our understanding of real-world complex networks by revealing the underlying stability behind their seemingly chaotic evolution.

After experimenting with a number of non-probabilistic methods for dealing with uncertainty many researchers reaffirm a preference for probability methods [1] [2], although this remains controversial. The importance of being able to form decisions from incomplete data in diagnostic problems has highlighted probabilistic methods [5] which compute posterior probabilities from prior distributions in a way similar to Bayes Rule, and thus are called Bayesian methods. This paper documents the use of a Bayesian method in a real time problem which is similar to medical diagnosis in that there is a need to form decisions and take some action without complete knowledge of conditions in the problem domain. This particular method has a limitation which is discussed.

A primary motivation for reasoning under uncertainty is to derive decisions in the face of inconclusive evidence. However, Shafer's theory of belief functions, which explicitly represents the underconstrained nature of many reasoning problems, lacks a formal procedure for making decisions. Clearly, when sufficient information is not available, no theory can prescribe actions without making additional assumptions. Faced with this situation, some assumption must be made if a clearly superior choice is to emerge. In this paper we offer a probabilistic interpretation of a simple assumption that disambiguates decision problems represented with belief functions. We prove that it yields expected values identical to those obtained by a probabilistic analysis that makes the same assumption. In addition, we show how the decision analysis methodology frequently employed in probabilistic reasoning can be extended for use with belief functions.

We introduce a graceful approach to probabilistic inference called bounded conditioning. Bounded conditioning monotonically refines the bounds on posterior probabilities in a belief network with computation, and converges on final probabilities of interest with the allocation of a complete resource fraction. The approach allows a reasoner to exchange arbitrary quantities of computational resource for incremental gains in inference quality. As such, bounded conditioning holds promise as a useful inference technique for reasoning under the general conditions of uncertain and varying reasoning resources. The algorithm solves a probabilistic bounding problem in complex belief networks by breaking the problem into a set of mutually exclusive, tractable subproblems and ordering their solution by the expected effect that each subproblem will have on the final answer. We introduce the algorithm, discuss its characterization, and present its performance on several belief networks, including a complex model for reasoning about problems in intensive-care medicine.

A. Abstract Control Strategies for hierachical treelike probabilistic inference networks are formulated and investigated. Strategies that utilize staged look-ahead and temporary focus on subgoals are formalized and refined using the Depth Vector concept that serves as a tool for defining the'virtual tree' regarded by the control strategy. The concept is illustrated by four types of control strategies for three-level trees that are characterized according to their Depth Vector, and according to the way they consider intermediate nodes and the role that they let these nodes play. INFERENTl is a computerized inference system written in Prolog, which provides tools for exercising a variety of control strategies. The system also provides tools for simulating test data and for comparing the relative average performance under different strategies.

Bayesian networks provide a probabilistic semantics for qualitative assertions about likelihood. A qualitative reasoner based on an algebra over these assertions can derive further conclusions about the influence of actions. While the conclusions are much weaker than those computed from complete probability distributions, they are still valuable for suggesting potential actions, eliminating obviously inferior plans, identifying important tradeoffs, and explaining probabilistic models.

(l) I have enough evidence to render the sentence S probable. (la) So, relative to what I know, it is rational of me to believe S. (2) Now that I have more evidence, S may no longer be probable. (2a) So now, relative to what I know, it is not rational of me to believe S. These seem a perfectly ordinary, common sense, pair of situations. Generally and vaguely, I take them to embody what I shall call probabilistic inference. This form of inference is clearly non-monotonic. Relatively few people have taken this form of inference, based on high probability, to serve as a foundation for non-monotonic logic or for a logical or defeasible inference. There are exceptions: Jane Nutter [16] thinks that sometimes probability has something to do with non-monotonic reasoning. Judea Pearl [ 17] has recently been exploring the possibility. There are any number of people whom one might call probability enthusiasts who feel that probability provides all the answers by itself, with no need of help from logic. Cheeseman [1], Henrion [5] and others think it useful to look at a distribution of probabilities over a whole algebra of statements, to update that distribution in the light of new evidence, and to use the latest updated distribution of probability over the algebra as a basis for planning and decision making. A slightly weaker form of this approach is captured by Nilsson [15], where one assumes certain probabilities for certain statements, and infers the probabilities, or constraints on the probabilities of other statement. None of this corresponds to what I call probabilistic inference. All of the inference that is taking place, either in Bayesian updating, or in probabilistic logic, is strictly deductive. Deductive inference, particularly that concerned with the distribution of classical probabilities or chances, is of great importance. But this is not to say that there is no important role for what earlier logicians have called "ampliative" or "inductive" or "scientific" inference, in which the conclusion goes beyond the premises, asserts more than do the premises. This depends on what David Israel [6] has called "real rules of inference". It is characteristic of any such logic or inference procedure that it can go wrong: that statements accepted at one point may be rejected at a later point. Research underlying the results reported here has been partially supported by the Signals Warfare Center of the United States Army.

We propose a novel general algorithm LHAC that efficiently uses second-order information to train a class of large-scale l1-regularized problems. Our method executes cheap iterations while achieving fast local convergence rate by exploiting the special structure of a low-rank matrix, constructed via quasi-Newton approximation of the Hessian of the smooth loss function. A greedy active-set strategy, based on the largest violations in the dual constraints, is employed to maintain a working set that iteratively estimates the complement of the optimal active set. This allows for smaller size of subproblems and eventually identifies the optimal active set. Empirical comparisons confirm that LHAC is highly competitive with several recently proposed state-of-the-art specialized solvers for sparse logistic regression and sparse inverse covariance matrix selection.

This paper describes experiments, on two domains, to investigate the effect of averaging over predictions of multiple decision trees, instead of using a single tree. Other authors have pointed out theoretical and commonsense reasons for preferring the multiple tree approach. Ideally, we would like to consider predictions from all trees, weighted by their probability. However, there is a vast number of different trees, and it is difficult to estimate the probability of each tree. We sidestep the estimation problem by using a modified version of the ID3 algorithm to build good trees, and average over only these trees. Our results are encouraging. For each domain, we managed to produce a small number of good trees. We find that it is best to average across sets of trees with different structure; this usually gives better performance than any of the constituent trees, including the ID3 tree.