Gerardo I. Simari

Paulo Shakarian, Gerardo I. Simari, Devon Callahan

Reasoning about complex networks has in recent years become an important topic of study due to its many applications: the adoption of commercial products, spread of disease, the diffusion of an idea, etc. In this paper, we present the MANCaLog language, a formalism based on logic programming that satisfies a set of desiderata proposed in previous work as recommendations for the development of approaches to reasoning in complex networks. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first formalism that satisfies all such criteria. We first focus on algorithms for finding minimal models (on which multi-attribute analysis can be done), and then on how this formalism can be applied in certain real world scenarios. Towards this end, we study the problem of deciding group membership in social networks: given a social network and a set of groups where group membership of only some of the individuals in the network is known, we wish to determine a degree of membership for the remaining group-individual pairs. We develop a prototype implementation that we use to obtain experimental results on two real world datasets, including a current social network of criminal gangs in a major U.S.\ city. We then show how the assignment of degree of membership to nodes in this case allows for a better understanding of the criminal gang problem when combined with other social network mining techniques -- including detection of sub-groups and identification of core group members -- which would not be possible without further identification of additional group members.

Paulo Shakarian, Gerardo I. Simari

While deep neural networks have led to major advances in image recognition, language translation, data mining, and game playing, there are well-known limits to the paradigm such as lack of explainability, difficulty of incorporating prior knowledge, and modularity. Neuro symbolic hybrid systems have recently emerged as a straightforward way to extend deep neural networks by incorporating ideas from symbolic reasoning such as computational logic. In this paper, we propose a list desirable criteria for neuro symbolic systems and examine how some of the existing approaches address these criteria. We then propose an extension to generalized annotated logic that allows for the creation of an equivalent neural architecture comprising an alternate neuro symbolic hybrid. However, unlike previous approaches that rely on continuous optimization for the training process, our framework is designed as a binarized neural network that uses discrete optimization. We provide proofs of correctness and discuss several of the challenges that must be overcome to realize this framework in an implemented system.

Divyagna Bavikadi, Dyuman Aditya, Devendra Parkar et al.

The ability to generate artificial human movement patterns while meeting location and time constraints is an important problem in the security community, particularly as it enables the study of the analog problem of detecting such patterns while maintaining privacy. We frame this problem as an instance of abduction guided by a novel parsimony function represented as an aggregate truth value over an annotated logic program. This approach has the added benefit of affording explainability to an analyst user. By showing that any subset of such a program can provide a lower bound on this parsimony requirement, we are able to abduce movement trajectories efficiently through an informed (i.e., A*) search. We describe how our implementation was enhanced with the application of multiple techniques in order to be scaled and integrated with a cloud-based software stack that included bottom-up rule learning, geolocated knowledge graph retrieval/management, and interfaces with government systems for independently conducted government-run tests for which we provide results. We also report on our own experiments showing that we not only provide exact results but also scale to very large scenarios and provide realistic agent trajectories that can go undetected by machine learning anomaly detectors.

Kaustuv Mukherji, Jaikrishna Manojkumar Patil, Dyuman Aditya et al.

We introduce Lattice Annotated Temporal (LAT) Logic, an extension of Generalized Annotated Logic Programs (GAPs) that incorporates temporal reasoning and supports open-world semantics through the use of a lower lattice structure. This logic combines an efficient deduction process with temporal logic programming to support non-Markovian relationships and open-world reasoning capabilities. The open-world aspect, a by-product of the use of the lower-lattice annotation structure, allows for efficient grounding through a Skolemization process, even in domains with infinite or highly diverse constants. We provide a suite of theoretical results that bound the computational complexity of the grounding process, in addition to showing that many of the results on GAPs (using an upper lattice) still hold with the lower lattice and temporal extensions (though different proof techniques are required). Our open-source implementation, PyReason, features modular design, machine-level optimizations, and direct integration with reinforcement learning environments. Empirical evaluations across multi-agent simulations and knowledge graph tasks demonstrate up to three orders of magnitude speedup and up to five orders of magnitude memory reduction while maintaining or improving task performance. Additionally, we evaluate LAT Logic's value in reinforcement learning environments as a non-Markovian simulator, achieving up to three orders of magnitude faster simulation with improved agent performance, including a 26% increase in win rate due to capturing richer temporal dependencies. These results highlight LAT Logic's potential as a unified, extensible framework for open-world temporal reasoning in dynamic and uncertain environments. Our implementation is available at: pyreason.syracuse.edu.

Noel Ngu, Aditya Taparia, Gerardo I. Simari et al.

Machine learning models assume that training and test samples are drawn from the same distribution. As such, significant differences between training and test distributions often lead to degradations in performance. We introduce Multiple Distribution Shift -- Aerial (MDS-A) -- a collection of inter-related datasets of the same aerial domain that are perturbed in different ways to better characterize the effects of out-of-distribution performance. Specifically, MDS-A is a set of simulated aerial datasets collected under different weather conditions. We include six datasets under different simulated weather conditions along with six baseline object-detection models, as well as several test datasets that are a mix of weather conditions that we show have significant differences from the training data. In this paper, we present characterizations of MDS-A, provide performance results for the baseline machine learning models (on both their specific training datasets and the test data), as well as results of the baselines after employing recent knowledge-engineering error-detection techniques (EDR) thought to improve out-of-distribution performance. The dataset is available at https://lab-v2.github.io/mdsa-dataset-website.

Paulo Shakarian, Gerardo I. Simari, Nathaniel D. Bastian

Metacognition is the concept of reasoning about an agent's own internal processes, and it has recently received renewed attention with respect to artificial intelligence (AI) and, more specifically, machine learning systems. This paper reviews a hybrid-AI approach known as "error detecting and correcting rules" (EDCR) that allows for the learning of rules to correct perceptual (e.g., neural) models. Additionally, we introduce a probabilistic framework that adds rigor to prior empirical studies, and we use this framework to prove results on necessary and sufficient conditions for metacognitive improvement, as well as limits to the approach. A set of future

Maria Victoria Carro, Francisca Gauna Selasco, Denise Alejandra Mester et al.

Causal learning is the cognitive process of developing the capability of making causal inferences based on available information, often guided by normative principles. This process is prone to errors and biases, such as the illusion of causality, in which people perceive a causal relationship between two variables despite lacking supporting evidence. This cognitive bias has been proposed to underlie many societal problems, including social prejudice, stereotype formation, misinformation, and superstitious thinking. In this research, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) develop causal illusions, both in real-world and controlled laboratory contexts of causal learning and inference. To this end, we built a dataset of over 2K samples including purely correlational cases, situations with null contingency, and cases where temporal information excludes the possibility of causality by placing the potential effect before the cause. We then prompted the models to make statements or answer causal questions to evaluate their tendencies to infer causation erroneously in these structured settings. Our findings show a strong presence of causal illusion bias in LLMs. Specifically, in open-ended generation tasks involving spurious correlations, the models displayed bias at levels comparable to, or even lower than, those observed in similar studies on human subjects. However, when faced with null-contingency scenarios or temporal cues that negate causal relationships, where it was required to respond on a 0-100 scale, the models exhibited significantly higher bias. These findings suggest that the models have not uniformly, consistently, or reliably internalized the normative principles essential for accurate causal learning.

María Victoria Carro, Denise Alejandra Mester, Francisca Gauna Selasco et al.

Causal learning is the cognitive process of developing the capability of making causal inferences based on available information, often guided by normative principles. This process is prone to errors and biases, such as the illusion of causality, in which people perceive a causal relationship between two variables despite lacking supporting evidence. This cognitive bias has been proposed to underlie many societal problems, including social prejudice, stereotype formation, misinformation, and superstitious thinking. In this work, we examine whether large language models are prone to developing causal illusions when faced with a classic cognitive science paradigm: the contingency judgment task. To investigate this, we constructed a dataset of 1,000 null contingency scenarios (in which the available information is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship between variables) within medical contexts and prompted LLMs to evaluate the effectiveness of potential causes. Our findings show that all evaluated models systematically inferred unwarranted causal relationships, revealing a strong susceptibility to the illusion of causality. While there is ongoing debate about whether LLMs genuinely understand causality or merely reproduce causal language without true comprehension, our findings support the latter hypothesis and raise concerns about the use of language models in domains where accurate causal reasoning is essential for informed decision-making.

María Victoria Carro, Denise Alejandra Mester, Facundo Nieto et al.

The core premise of AI debate as a scalable oversight technique is that it is harder to lie convincingly than to refute a lie, enabling the judge to identify the correct position. Yet, existing debate experiments have relied on datasets with ground truth, where lying is reduced to defending an incorrect proposition. This overlooks a subjective dimension: lying also requires the belief that the claim defended is false. In this work, we apply debate to subjective questions and explicitly measure large language models' prior beliefs before experiments. Debaters were asked to select their preferred position, then presented with a judge persona deliberately designed to conflict with their identified priors. This setup tested whether models would adopt sycophantic strategies, aligning with the judge's presumed perspective to maximize persuasiveness, or remain faithful to their prior beliefs. We implemented and compared two debate protocols, sequential and simultaneous, to evaluate potential systematic biases. Finally, we assessed whether models were more persuasive and produced higher-quality arguments when defending positions consistent with their prior beliefs versus when arguing against them. Our main findings show that models tend to prefer defending stances aligned with the judge persona rather than their prior beliefs, sequential debate introduces significant bias favoring the second debater, models are more persuasive when defending positions aligned with their prior beliefs, and paradoxically, arguments misaligned with prior beliefs are rated as higher quality in pairwise comparison. These results can inform human judges to provide higher-quality training signals and contribute to more aligned AI systems, while revealing important aspects of human-AI interaction regarding persuasion dynamics in language models.

Al Mehdi Saadat Chowdhury, Paulo Shakarian, Gerardo I. Simari

In this paper, we study the problem of visual question answering (VQA) where the image and query are represented by ASP programs that lack domain data. We provide an approach that is orthogonal and complementary to existing knowledge augmentation techniques where we abduce domain relationships of image constructs from past examples. After framing the abduction problem, we provide a baseline approach, and an implementation that significantly improves the accuracy of query answering yet requires few examples.

Jose N. Paredes, Juan Carlos L. Teze, Gerardo I. Simari et al.

With the availability of large datasets and ever-increasing computing power, there has been a growing use of data-driven artificial intelligence systems, which have shown their potential for successful application in diverse areas. However, many of these systems are not able to provide information about the rationale behind their decisions to their users. Lack of understanding of such decisions can be a major drawback, especially in critical domains such as those related to cybersecurity. In light of this problem, in this paper we make three contributions: (i) proposal and discussion of desiderata for the explanation of outputs generated by AI-based cybersecurity systems; (ii) a comparative analysis of approaches in the literature on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) under the lens of both our desiderata and further dimensions that are typically used for examining XAI approaches; and (iii) a general architecture that can serve as a roadmap for guiding research efforts towards the development of explainable AI-based cybersecurity systems -- at its core, this roadmap proposes combinations of several research lines in a novel way towards tackling the unique challenges that arise in this context.

Maximiliano C. D. Budán, Gerardo I. Simari, Ignacio Viglizzo et al.

Argumentation theory is a powerful paradigm that formalizes a type of commonsense reasoning that aims to simulate the human ability to resolve a specific problem in an intelligent manner. A classical argumentation process takes into account only the properties related to the intrinsic logical soundness of an argument in order to determine its acceptability status. However, these properties are not always the only ones that matter to establish the argument's acceptability---there exist other qualities, such as strength, weight, social votes, trust degree, relevance level, and certainty degree, among others.

Mohammed Almukaynizi, Ericsson Marin, Eric Nunes et al.

Recent incidents of data breaches call for organizations to proactively identify cyber attacks on their systems. Darkweb/Deepweb (D2web) forums and marketplaces provide environments where hackers anonymously discuss existing vulnerabilities and commercialize malicious software to exploit those vulnerabilities. These platforms offer security practitioners a threat intelligence environment that allows to mine for patterns related to organization-targeted cyber attacks. In this paper, we describe a system (called DARKMENTION) that learns association rules correlating indicators of attacks from D2web to real-world cyber incidents. Using the learned rules, DARKMENTION generates and submits warnings to a Security Operations Center (SOC) prior to attacks. Our goal was to design a system that automatically generates enterprise-targeted warnings that are timely, actionable, accurate, and transparent. We show that DARKMENTION meets our goal. In particular, we show that it outperforms baseline systems that attempt to generate warnings of cyber attacks related to two enterprises with an average increase in F1 score of about 45% and 57%. Additionally, DARKMENTION was deployed as part of a larger system that is built under a contract with the IARPA Cyber-attack Automated Unconventional Sensor Environment (CAUSE) program. It is actively producing warnings that precede attacks by an average of 3 days.

Eric Nunes, Paulo Shakarian, Gerardo I. Simari et al.

A major challenge in cyber-threat analysis is combining information from different sources to find the person or the group responsible for the cyber-attack. It is one of the most important technical and policy challenges in cyber-security. The lack of ground truth for an individual responsible for an attack has limited previous studies. In this paper, we take a first step towards overcoming this limitation by building a dataset from the capture-the-flag event held at DEFCON, and propose an argumentation model based on a formal reasoning framework called DeLP (Defeasible Logic Programming) designed to aid an analyst in attributing a cyber-attack. We build models from latent variables to reduce the search space of culprits (attackers), and show that this reduction significantly improves the performance of classification-based approaches from 37% to 62% in identifying the attacker.

Paulo Shakarian, Gerardo I. Simari, Geoffrey Moores et al.

Attributing a cyber-operation through the use of multiple pieces of technical evidence (i.e., malware reverse-engineering and source tracking) and conventional intelligence sources (i.e., human or signals intelligence) is a difficult problem not only due to the effort required to obtain evidence, but the ease with which an adversary can plant false evidence. In this paper, we introduce a formal reasoning system called the InCA (Intelligent Cyber Attribution) framework that is designed to aid an analyst in the attribution of a cyber-operation even when the available information is conflicting and/or uncertain. Our approach combines argumentation-based reasoning, logic programming, and probabilistic models to not only attribute an operation but also explain to the analyst why the system reaches its conclusions.

Paulo Shakarian, Gerardo I. Simari, Marcelo A. Falappa

In real-world applications, knowledge bases consisting of all the information at hand for a specific domain, along with the current state of affairs, are bound to contain contradictory data coming from different sources, as well as data with varying degrees of uncertainty attached. Likewise, an important aspect of the effort associated with maintaining knowledge bases is deciding what information is no longer useful; pieces of information (such as intelligence reports) may be outdated, may come from sources that have recently been discovered to be of low quality, or abundant evidence may be available that contradicts them. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic structured argumentation framework that arises from the extension of Presumptive Defeasible Logic Programming (PreDeLP) with probabilistic models, and argue that this formalism is capable of addressing the basic issues of handling contradictory and uncertain data. Then, to address the last issue, we focus on the study of non-prioritized belief revision operations over probabilistic PreDeLP programs. We propose a set of rationality postulates -- based on well-known ones developed for classical knowledge bases -- that characterize how such operations should behave, and study a class of operators along with theoretical relationships with the proposed postulates, including a representation theorem stating the equivalence between this class and the class of operators characterized by the postulates.

Thomas Lukasiewicz, Maria Vanina Martinez, Cristian Molinaro et al.

The use of preferences in query answering, both in traditional databases and in ontology-based data access, has recently received much attention, due to its many real-world applications. In this paper, we tackle the problem of top-k query answering in Datalog+/- ontologies subject to the querying user's preferences and a collection of (subjective) reports of other users. Here, each report consists of scores for a list of features, its author's preferences among the features, as well as other information. Theses pieces of information of every report are then combined, along with the querying user's preferences and his/her trust into each report, to rank the query results. We present two alternative such rankings, along with algorithms for top-k (atomic) query answering under these rankings. We also show that, under suitable assumptions, these algorithms run in polynomial time in the data complexity. We finally present more general reports, which are associated with sets of atoms rather than single atoms.

Paulo Shakarian, Gerardo I. Simari, Robert Schroeder

The modeling of cascade processes in multi-agent systems in the form of complex networks has in recent years become an important topic of study due to its many applications: the adoption of commercial products, spread of disease, the diffusion of an idea, etc. In this paper, we begin by identifying a desiderata of seven properties that a framework for modeling such processes should satisfy: the ability to represent attributes of both nodes and edges, an explicit representation of time, the ability to represent non-Markovian temporal relationships, representation of uncertain information, the ability to represent competing cascades, allowance of non-monotonic diffusion, and computational tractability. We then present the MANCaLog language, a formalism based on logic programming that satisfies all these desiderata, and focus on algorithms for finding minimal models (from which the outcome of cascades can be obtained) as well as how this formalism can be applied in real world scenarios. We are not aware of any other formalism in the literature that meets all of the above requirements.

Thomas Lukasiewicz, Maria Vanina Martinez, Giorgio Orsi et al.

The Semantic Web effort has steadily been gaining traction in the recent years. In particular,Web search companies are recently realizing that their products need to evolve towards having richer semantic search capabilities. Description logics (DLs) have been adopted as the formal underpinnings for Semantic Web languages used in describing ontologies. Reasoning under uncertainty has recently taken a leading role in this arena, given the nature of data found on theWeb. In this paper, we present a probabilistic extension of the DL EL++ (which underlies the OWL2 EL profile) using Markov logic networks (MLNs) as probabilistic semantics. This extension is tightly coupled, meaning that probabilistic annotations in formulas can refer to objects in the ontology. We show that, even though the tightly coupled nature of our language means that many basic operations are data-intractable, we can leverage a sublanguage of MLNs that allows to rank the atomic consequences of an ontology relative to their probability values (called ranking queries) even when these values are not fully computed. We present an anytime algorithm to answer ranking queries, and provide an upper bound on the error that it incurs, as well as a criterion to decide when results are guaranteed to be correct.