While many – if not most – Federal agencies are taking at least preliminary steps towards embracing advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), they are moving with a degree of justifiable caution when it comes to relying on those technologies as part of their cybersecurity defenses, government tech officials said today at an event presented by Fortinet. The measured pace of AI and ML for security purposes is tied to the crucial nature of the cybersecurity mission, panelists said. Frank Konieczny, Chief Technology Officer at the U.S. Air Force, said that ML tech in particular requires establishing baselines for access and security to be sure that adversaries are not already impacting relevant data. And, he said, resulting data outputs from ML applications can still be somewhat opaque, and need to be examined more closely by human operators. "You ask, 'how did it figure that one out,'" he said, adding that process results in "a lot of time … by a human looking at [the result] again, which we don't want to do."

As one of fundamental properties to characterize inconsistency measures for knowledge bases, the property of free formula independence well captures the intuition that free formulas are independent of the amount of inconsistency in a knowledge base for cases where inconsistency is characterized in terms of minimal inconsistent subsets. But it has been argued that not all the free formulas are independent of inconsistency in some other contexts of inconsistency characterization. In this paper, we propose a characterization of formulas independent of inconsistency in the framework of Priest's minimally inconsistent LP. Based on an atom-based counterpart of the notion of free formula, we propose a notion of Bi-free formula to describe formulas that are free from inconsistency in both syntax and paraconsistent models in this logic. Then we propose the property of Bi-free formula independence, which is more suitable for characterizing the role of formulas free from inconsistency in measuring inconsistency from both syntactic and semantic perspectives.

We define a consensus postulate in the propositional belief merging setting. In a nutshell, this postulate imposes the merged base to be consistent with the pieces of information provided by each agent involved in the merging process. The interplay of this new postulate with the IC postulates for belief merging is studied, and an incompatibility result is proved. The maximal sets of IC postulates which are consistent with the consensus postulate are exhibited. When satisfying some of the remaining IC postulates, consensus operators are shown to suffer from a weak inferential power. We then introduce two families of consensus operators having a better inferential power by setting aside some of these postulates.

We present SAT encoding schemes for distance-based belief merging operators relying on the (possibly weighted) drastic distance or the Hamming distance between interpretations, and using sum, GMax (leximax) or GMin (leximin) as aggregation function. In order to evaluate these encoding schemes, we generated benchmarks of a time-tabling problem and translated them into belief merging instances. Then, taking advantage of these schemes, we compiled the merged bases of the resulting instances into query-equivalent CNF formulae. Experiments have shown the benefits which can be gained by considering the SAT encoding schemes we pointed out. Especially, thanks to them, we succeeded in computing query-equivalent formulae for merging instances based on hundreds of variables, which are out of reach of previous implementations.

Formalizing dynamics of argumentation has received increasing attention over the last years. While AGM-like representation results for revision of argumentation frameworks (AFs) are now available, similar results for the problem of merging are still missing. In this paper, we close this gap and adapt model-based propositional belief merging to define extension-based merging operators for AFs. We state an axiomatic and a constructive characterization of merging operators through a family of rationality postulates and a representation theorem. Then we exhibit merging operators which satisfy the postulates. In contrast to the case of revision, we observe that obtaining a single framework as result of merging turns out to be a more subtle issue. Finally, we establish links between our new results and previous approaches to merging of AFs, which mainly relied on axioms from Social Choice Theory, but lacked AGM-like representation theorems.

Belief revision games (BRGs) are concerned with the dynamics of the beliefs of a group of communicating agents. BRGs are "zero-player" games where at each step every agent revises her own beliefs by taking account for the beliefs of her acquaintances. Each agent is associated with a belief state defined on some finite propositional language. We provide a general definition for such games where each agent has her own revision policy, and show that the belief sequences of agents can always be finitely characterized. We then define a set of revision policies based on belief merging operators. We point out a set of appealing properties for BRGs and investigate the extent to which these properties are satisfied by the merging-based policies under consideration.

Belief merging aims at extracting a coherent and informative view from a set of belief bases. A first requirement for belief merging operators is to obey basic rationality conditions. Another expected property is to preserve as much information as possible from the input bases. In this paper, we show how new merging operators, called compositional operators, can be defined from existing ones. Such operators aim at offering a higher discriminative power than the merging operators on which they are based, without leading to a complexity shift or losing rationality postulates. We identify some sufficient conditions for ensuring that rationality is fully preserved by composition.

There is interest in artificial intelligence for principled techniques to analyze inconsistent information. This stems from the recognition that the dichotomy between consistent and inconsistent sets of formulae that comes from classical logics is not sufficient for describing inconsistent information. We review some existing proposals and make new proposals for measures of inconsistency and measures of information, and then prove that they are all pairwise incompatible. This shows that the notion of inconsistency is a multi-dimensional concept where different measures provide different insights. We then explore relationships between measures of inconsistency and measures of information in terms of the trade-offs they identify when using them to guide resolution of inconsistency.