Despite numerous countermeasures proposed by practitioners and researchers, remote control-flow alteration of programs with memory-safety vulnerabilities continues to be a realistic threat. Guaranteeing that complex software is completely free of memory-safety vulnerabilities is extremely expensive. Probabilistic countermeasures that depend on random secret keys are interesting, because they are an inexpensive way to raise the bar for attackers who aim to exploit memory-safety vulnerabilities. Moreover, some countermeasures even support legacy systems. However, it is unclear how to quantify and compare the effectiveness of different probabilistic countermeasures or combinations of such countermeasures. In this paper we propose a methodology to rigorously derive security bounds for probabilistic countermeasures. We argue that by representing security notions in this setting as events in probabilistic games, similarly as done with cryptographic security definitions, concrete and asymptotic guarantees can be obtained against realistic attackers. These guarantees shed light on the effectiveness of single countermeasures and their composition and allow practitioners to more precisely gauge the risk of an attack.
@cite_25 cast the problem of reasoning on the effectiveness of ASLR as full-abstraction problem. Different from , they consider concrete probability bounds on attackers, and abstract away from malicious inputs by considering arbitrary execution contexts. To this end, they also construct exemplary high and low level languages, and limit themselves to the analysis of ASLR.
@cite_25
2886424491 2566920815 2098245493 2787066086 2963676309 2466714650 2952456051 1986424898 2207251955 1552505815 1567155055 66062313 2786674049 2091232155 1518484552 1964821516 2100515808 2906208681 2144159061 2135625884
Given a partial description like "she opened the hood of the car," humans can reason about the situation and anticipate what might come next ("then, she examined the engine"). In this paper, we introduce the task of grounded commonsense inference, unifying natural language inference and commonsense reasoning. We present SWAG, a new dataset with 113k multiple choice questions about a rich spectrum of grounded situations. To address the recurring challenges of the annotation artifacts and human biases found in many existing datasets, we propose Adversarial Filtering (AF), a novel procedure that constructs a de-biased dataset by iteratively training an ensemble of stylistic classifiers, and using them to filter the data. To account for the aggressive adversarial filtering, we use state-of-the-art language models to massively oversample a diverse set of potential counterfactuals. Empirical results demonstrate that while humans can solve the resulting inference problems with high accuracy (88 ), various competitive models struggle on our task. We provide comprehensive analysis that indicates significant opportunities for future research. STRIPS-like languages (SLLs) have fostered immense advances in automated planning. In practice, SLLs are used to express highly abstract versions of real-world planning problems, leading to more concise models and faster solution times. Unfortunately, as we show in the paper, simple ways of abstracting solvable real-world problems may lead to SLL models that are unsolvable, SLL models whose solutions are incorrect with respect to the real-world problem, or models that are inexpressible in SLLs. There is some evidence that such limitations have restricted the applicability of AI planning technology in the real world, as is apparent in the case of task and motion planning in robotics. We show that the situation can be ameliorated by a combination of increased expressive power—for example, allowing angelic nondeterminism in action effects—and new kinds of algorithmic approaches designed to produce correct solutions from initially incorrect or non-Markovian abstract models. This paper investigates relative precision and optimality of analyses for concurrent probabilistic systems. Aiming at the problem at the heart of probabilistic model checking – computing the probability of reaching a particular set of states – we leverage the theory of abstract interpretation. With a focus on predicate abstraction, we develop the first abstract-interpretation framework for Markov decision processes which admits to compute both lower and upper bounds on reachability probabilities. Further, we describe how to compute and approximate such abstractions using abstraction refinement and give experimental results. We consider the problem of constructing abstract representations for planning in high-dimensional, continuous environments. We assume an agent equipped with a collection of high-level actions, and construct representations provably capable of evaluating plans composed of sequences of those actions. @PARASPLIT We first consider the deterministic planning case, and show that the relevant computation involves set operations performed over sets of states. We define the specific collection of sets that is necessary and sufficient for planning, and use them to construct a grounded abstract symbolic representation that is provably suitable for deterministic planning. The resulting representation can be expressed in PDDL, a canonical high-level planning domain language; we construct such a representation for the Playroom domain and solve it in milliseconds using an off-the-shelf planner. @PARASPLIT We then consider probabilistic planning, which we show requires generalizing from sets of states to distributions over states. We identify the specific distributions required for planning, and use them to construct a grounded abstract symbolic representation that correctly estimates the expected reward and probability of success of any plan. In addition, we show that learning the relevant probability distributions corresponds to specific instances of probabilistic density estimation and probabilistic classification. We construct an agent that autonomously learns the correct abstract representation of a computer game domain, and rapidly solves it. @PARASPLIT Finally, we apply these techniques to create a physical robot system that autonomously learns its own symbolic representation of a mobile manipulation task directly from sensorimotor data---point clouds, map locations, and joint angles---and then plans using that representation. Together, these results establish a principled link between high-level actions and abstract representations, a concrete theoretical foundation for constructing abstract representations with provable properties, and a practical mechanism for autonomously learning abstract high-level representations. The distribution semantics is one of the most prominent approaches for the combination of logic programming and probability theory. Many languages follow this semantics, such as Independent Choice Logic, PRISM, pD, Logic Programs with Annotated Disjunctions (LPADs) and ProbLog. When a program contains functions symbols, the distribution semantics is well-defined only if the set of explanations for a query is finite and so is each explanation. Welldefinedness is usually either explicitly imposed or is achieved by severely limiting the class of allowed programs. In this paper we identify a larger class of programs for which the semantics is well-defined together with an efficient procedure for computing the probability of queries. Since LPADs offer the most general syntax, we present our results for them, but our results are applicable to all languages under the distribution semantics. We present the algorithm “Probabilistic Inference with Tabling and Answer subsumption” (PITA) that computes the probability of queries by transforming a probabilistic program into a normal program and then applying SLG resolution with answer subsumption. PITA has been implemented in XSB and tested on six domains: two with function symbols and four without. The execution times are compared with those of ProbLog, cplint and CVE. PITA was almost always able to solve larger problems in a shorter time, on domains with and without function symbols. Our goal is to combine the rich multistep inference of symbolic logical reasoning with the generalization capabilities of neural networks. We are particularly interested in complex reasoning about entities and relations in text and large-scale knowledge bases (KBs). (2015) use RNNs to compose the distributed semantics of multi-hop paths in KBs; however for multiple reasons, the approach lacks accuracy and practicality. This paper proposes three significant modeling advances: (1) we learn to jointly reason about relations, entities, and entity-types; (2) we use neural attention modeling to incorporate multiple paths; (3) we learn to share strength in a single RNN that represents logical composition across all relations. On a largescale Freebase+ClueWeb prediction task, we achieve 25 error reduction, and a 53 error reduction on sparse relations due to shared strength. On chains of reasoning in WordNet we reduce error in mean quantile by 84 versus previous state-of-the-art. The code and data are available at this https URL Although many investigators affirm a desire to build reasoning systems that behave consistently with the axiomatic basis defined by probability theory and utility theory, limited resources for engineering and computation can make a complete normative analysis impossible. We attempt to move discussion beyond the debate over the scope of problems that can be handled effectively to cases where it is clear that there are insufficient computational resources to perform an analysis deemed as complete. Under these conditions, we stress the importance of considering the expected costs and benefits of applying alternative approximation procedures and heuristics for computation and knowledge acquisition. We discuss how knowledge about the structure of user utility can be used to control value tradeoffs for tailoring inference to alternative contexts. We address the notion of real-time rationality, focusing on the application of knowledge about the expected timewise-refinement abilities of reasoning strategies to balance the benefits of additional computation with the costs of acting with a partial result. We discuss the benefits of applying decision theory to control the solution of difficult problems given limitations and uncertainty in reasoning resources. This paper presents the linear temporal logic of rewriting (LTLR) model checker under localized fairness assumptions for the Maude system. The linear temporal logic of rewriting extends linear temporal logic (LTL) with spatial action patterns that describe patterns of rewriting events. Since LTLR generalizes and extends various state-based and event-based logics, mixed properties involving both state propositions and actions, such as fairness properties, can be naturally expressed in LTLR. However, often the needed fairness assumptions cannot even be expressed as propositional temporal logic formulas because they are parametric, that is, they correspond to universally quantified temporal logic formulas. Such universal quantification is succinctly captured by the notion of localized fairness; for example, fairness is localized to the object name parameter in object fairness conditions. We summarize the foundations, and present the language design and implementation of the Maude Fair LTLR model checker, developed at the C++ level within the Maude system by extending the existing Maude LTL model checker. Our tool provides not only an efficient LTLR model checking algorithm under parameterized fairness assumptions but also suitable specification languages as part of its user interface. The expressiveness and effectiveness of the Maude Fair LTLR model checker are illustrated by five case studies. This is the first tool we are aware of that can model check temporal logic properties under parameterized fairness assumptions. We develop the LTLR model checker under localized fairness assumptions.The linear temporal logic of rewriting (LTLR) extends LTL with action patterns.Localized fairness specifies parameterized fairness over generic system entities.We present the foundations, the language design, and the implementation of our tool.We illustrate the expressiveness and effectiveness of our tool with case studies. Probabilistic abstract argumentation combines Dung’s abstract argumentation framework with probability theory in order to model uncertainty in argumentation. In this setting, we address the fundamental problem of computing the probability that a set of arguments is an extension according to a given semantics. We focus on the most popular semantics (i.e., admissible, stable, complete, grounded, preferred, ideal-set, ideal, stage, and semistable) and show the following dichotomy result: computing the probability that a set of arguments is an extension is either FP or FP#P-complete depending on the semantics adopted. Our polynomial-time results are particularly interesting, as they hold for some semantics for which no polynomial-time technique was known so far. The paper presents an approach for shape analysis based on predicate abstraction. Using a predicate base that involves reachability relations between program variables pointing into the heap, we are able to analyze functional properties of programs with destructive heap updates, such as list reversal and various in-place list sorts. The approach allows verification of both safety and liveness properties. The abstraction we use does not require any abstract representation of the heap nodes (e.g. abstract shapes), only reachability relations between the program variables. The computation of the abstract transition relation is precise and automatic yet does not require the use of a theorem prover. Instead, we use a small model theorem to identify a truncated (small) finite-state version of the program whose abstraction is identical to the abstraction of the unbounded-heap version of the same program. The abstraction of the finite-state version is then computed by BDD techniques. For proving liveness properties, we augment the original system by a well-founded ranking function, which is abstracted together with the system. Well-foundedness is then abstracted into strong fairness (compassion). We show that, for a restricted class of programs that still includes many interesting cases, the small model theorem can be applied to this joint abstraction. Independently of the application to shape-analysis examples, we demonstrate the utility of the ranking abstraction method and its advantages over the direct use of ranking functions in a deductive verification of the same property. In answer-set programming (ASP), the main focus usually is on computing answer sets which correspond to solutions to the problem represented by a logic program. Simple reasoning over answer sets is sometimes supported by ASP systems (usually in the form of computing brave or cautious consequences), but slightly more involved reasoning problems require external postprocessing. Generally speaking, it is often desirable to use (a subset of) brave or cautious consequences of a program P 1 as input to another program P 2 in order to provide the desired solutions to the problem to be solved. In practice, the evaluation of the program P 1 currently has to be decoupled from the evaluation of P 2 using an intermediate step which collects the desired consequences of P 1 and provides them as input to P 2 . In this work, we present a novel method for representing such a procedure within a single program, and thus within the realm of ASP itself. Our technique relies on rewriting P 1 into a so-called manifold program , which allows for accessing all desired consequences of P 1 within a single answer set. Then, this manifold program can be evaluated jointly with P 2 avoiding any intermediate computation step. For determining the consequences within the manifold program we use weak constraints , which is strongly motivated by complexity considerations. As an application, we present an encoding for computing the ideal extension of an abstract argumentation framework. Abstract argumentation frameworks nowadays provide the most popular formalization of argumentation on a conceptual level. Numerous semantics for this paradigm have been proposed, whereby cf2 semantics has shown to nicely solve particular problems concernend with odd-length cycles in such frameworks. In order to compare different semantics not only on a theoretical basis, it is necessary to provide systems which implement them within a uniform platform. Answer-Set Programming (ASP) turned out to be a promising direction for this aim, since it not only allows for a concise representation of concepts inherent to argumentation semantics, but also offers sophisticated off-the-shelves solvers which can be used as core computation engines. In fact, many argumentation semantics have meanwhile been encoded within the ASP paradigm, but not all relevant semantics, among them cf2 semantics, have yet been considered. The contributions of this work are thus twofold. Due to the particular nature of cf2 semantics, we first provide an alternative characterization which, roughly speaking, avoids the recursive computation of sub-frameworks. Then, we provide the concrete ASP-encodings, which are incorporated within the ASPARTIX system, a platform which already implements a wide range of semantics for abstract argumentation. In this paper, we present the results of long-term research conducted in order to study the contribution made by software models based on the Unified Modeling Language (UML) to the comprehensibility of Java source-code deprived of comments. We have conducted 12 controlled experiments in different experimental contexts and on different sites with participants with different levels of expertise (i.e., Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD students and software practitioners from Italy and Spain). A total of 333 observations were obtained from these experiments. The UML models in our experiments were those produced in the analysis and design phases. The models produced in the analysis phase were created with the objective of abstracting the environment in which the software will work (i.e., the problem domain), while those produced in the design phase were created with the goal of abstracting implementation aspects of the software (i.e., the solution application domain). Source-code comprehensibility was assessed with regard to correctness of understanding, time taken to accomplish the comprehension tasks, and efficiency as regards accomplishing those tasks. In order to study the global effect of UML models on source-code comprehensibility, we aggregated results from the individual experiments using a meta-analysis. We made every effort to account for the heterogeneity of our experiments when aggregating the results obtained from them. The overall results suggest that the use of UML models affects the comprehensibility of source-code, when it is deprived of comments. Indeed, models produced in the analysis phase might reduce source-code comprehensibility, while increasing the time taken to complete comprehension tasks. That is, browsing source code and this kind of models together negatively impacts on the time taken to complete comprehension tasks without having a positive effect on the comprehensibility of source code. One plausible justification for this is that the UML models produced in the analysis phase focus on the problem domain. That is, models produced in the analysis phase say nothing about source code and there should be no expectation that they would, in any way, be beneficial to comprehensibility. On the other hand, UML models produced in the design phase improve source-code comprehensibility. One possible justification for this result is that models produced in the design phase are more focused on implementation details. Therefore, although the participants had more material to read and browse, this additional effort was paid back in the form of an improved comprehension of source code. Despite the advances made by modern parsing strategies such as PEG, LL(*), GLR, and GLL, parsing is not a solved problem. Existing approaches suffer from a number of weaknesses, including difficulties supporting side-effecting embedded actions, slow and or unpredictable performance, and counter-intuitive matching strategies. This paper introduces the ALL(*) parsing strategy that combines the simplicity, efficiency, and predictability of conventional top-down LL(k) parsers with the power of a GLR-like mechanism to make parsing decisions. The critical innovation is to move grammar analysis to parse-time, which lets ALL(*) handle any non-left-recursive context-free grammar. ALL(*) is O(n4) in theory but consistently performs linearly on grammars used in practice, outperforming general strategies such as GLL and GLR by orders of magnitude. ANTLR 4 generates ALL(*) parsers and supports direct left-recursion through grammar rewriting. Widespread ANTLR 4 use (5000 downloads month in 2013) provides evidence that ALL(*) is effective for a wide variety of applications. This paper considers the problem of knowledge inference on large-scale imperfect repositories with incomplete coverage by means of embedding entities and relations at the first attempt. We propose IIKE (Imperfect and Incomplete Knowledge Embedding), a probabilistic model which measures the probability of each belief, i.e. @math , in large-scale knowledge bases such as NELL and Freebase, and our objective is to learn a better low-dimensional vector representation for each entity ( @math and @math ) and relation ( @math ) in the process of minimizing the loss of fitting the corresponding confidence given by machine learning (NELL) or crowdsouring (Freebase), so that we can use @math to assess the plausibility of a belief when conducting inference. We use subsets of those inexact knowledge bases to train our model and test the performances of link prediction and triplet classification on ground truth beliefs, respectively. The results of extensive experiments show that IIKE achieves significant improvement compared with the baseline and state-of-the-art approaches. Abstract Many AI problems, when formalized, reduce to evaluating the probability that a propositional expression is true. In this paper we show that this problem is computationally intractable even in surprisingly restricted cases and even if we settle for an approximation to this probability. We consider various methods used in approximate reasoning such as computing degree of belief and Bayesian belief networks, as well as reasoning techniques such as constraint satisfaction and knowledge compilation, that use approximation to avoid computational difficulties, and reduce them to model-counting problems over a propositional domain. We prove that counting satisfying assignments of propositional languages is intractable even for Horn and monotone formulae, and even when the size of clauses and number of occurrences of the variables are extremely limited. This should be contrasted with the case of deductive reasoning, where Horn theories and theories with binary clauses are distinguished by the existence of linear time satisfiability algorithms. What is even more surprising is that, as we show, even approximating the number of satisfying assignments (i.e., “approximating” approximate reasoning), is intractable for most of these restricted theories. We also identify some restricted classes of propositional formulae for which efficient algorithms for counting satisfying assignments can be given. We present a novel reasoning calculus for the description logic SHOIQ+--a knowledge representation formalism with applications in areas such as the SemanticWeb. Unnecessary nondeterminism and the construction of large models are two primary sources of inefficiency in the tableau-based reasoning calculi used in state-of-the-art reasoners. In order to reduce nondeterminism, we base our calculus on hypertableau and hyperresolution calculi, which we extend with a blocking condition to ensure termination. In order to reduce the size of the constructed models, we introduce anywhere pairwise blocking. We also present an improved nominal introduction rule that ensures termination in the presence of nominals, inverse roles, and number restrictions--a combination of DL constructs that has proven notoriously difficult to handle. Our implementation shows significant performance improvements over state-of-the-art reasoners on several well-known ontologies. We consider adversarial examples in the black-box decision-based scenario. Here, an attacker has access to the final classification of a model, but not its parameters or softmax outputs. Most attacks for this scenario are based either on transferability, which is unreliable, or random sampling, which is often slow. Focusing on the latter, we propose to improve the efficiency of sampling-based attacks with prior beliefs about the target domain. We identify two such priors, image frequency and surrogate gradients, and discuss how to integrate them into a unified sampling procedure. We then formulate the Biased Boundary Attack, which achieves a drastic speedup over the original Boundary Attack. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach against an ImageNet classifier. We also showcase a targeted attack for the Google Cloud Vision API, where we craft convincing examples with just a few hundred queries. Finally, we demonstrate that our approach outperforms the state of the art when facing strong defenses: Our attack scored second place in the targeted attack track of the NeurIPS 2018 Adversarial Vision Challenge. Statistical-relational reasoning has received much attention due to its ability to robustly model complex relationships. A key challenge is tractable inference, especially in domains involving many objects, due to the combinatorics involved. One can accelerate inference by using approximation techniques, "lazy" algorithms, etc. We consider Markov Logic Networks (MLNs), which involve counting how often logical formulae are satisfied. We propose a preprocessing algorithm that can substantially reduce the effective size of MLNs by rapidly counting how often the evidence satisfies each formula, regardless of the truth values of the query literals. This is a general preprocessing method that loses no information and can be used for any MLN inference algorithm. We evaluate our algorithm empirically in three real-world domains, greatly reducing the work needed during subsequent inference. Such reduction might even allow exact inference to be performed when sampling methods would be otherwise necessary. 1. Summary In Part I, four ostensibly different theoretical models of induction are presented, in which the problem dealt with is the extrapolation of a very long sequence of symbols—presumably containing all of the information to be used in the induction. Almost all, if not all problems in induction can be put in this form. Some strong heuristic arguments have been obtained for the equivalence of the last three models. One of these models is equivalent to a Bayes formulation, in which a priori probabilities are assigned to sequences of symbols on the basis of the lengths of inputs to a universal Turing machine that are required to produce the sequence of interest as output. Though it seems likely, it is not certain whether the first of the four models is equivalent to the other three. Few rigorous results are presented. Informal investigations are made of the properties of these models. There are discussions of their consistency and meaningfulness, of their degree of independence of the exact nature of the Turing machine used, and of the accuracy of their predictions in comparison to those of other induction methods. In Part II these models are applied to the solution of three problems—prediction of the Bernoulli sequence, extrapolation of a certain kind of Markov chain, and the use of phrase structure grammars for induction. Though some approximations are used, the first of these problems is treated most rigorously. The result is Laplace's rule of succession. The solution to the second problem uses less certain approximations, but the properties of the solution that are discussed, are fairly independent of these approximations. The third application, using phrase structure grammars, is least exact of the three. First a formal solution is presented. Though it appears to have certain deficiencies, it is hoped that presentation of this admittedly inadequate model will suggest acceptable improvements in it. This formal solution is then applied in an approximate way to the determination of the “optimum” phrase structure grammar for a given set of strings. The results that are obtained are plausible, but subject to the uncertainties of the approximation used.