On Qualitative Probabilities for Legal Reasoning about Evidence

A crucial aspect of evidential reasoning in crime investigation involves comparing the support that evidence provides for alternative hypotheses. Recent work in forensic statistics has shown how Bayesian Networks (BNs) can be employed for this purpose. However, the specification of BNs requires conditional probability tables describing the uncertain processes under evaluation. When these processes are poorly understood, it is necessary to rely on subjective probabilities provided by experts. Accurate probabilities of this type are normally hard to acquire from experts. Recent work in qualitative reasoning has developed methods to perform probabilistic reasoning using coarser representations. However, the latter types of approaches are too imprecise to compare the likelihood of alternative hypotheses. This paper examines this shortcoming of the qualitative approaches when applied to the aforementioned problem, and identifies and integrates techniques to refine them.

Reasoning about Requirements Evolution Using Clustered Belief Revision

During the development of system requirements, software system specifications are often inconsistent. Inconsistencies may arise for different reasons, for example, when multiple conflicting viewpoints are embodied in the specification, or when the specification itself is at a transient stage of evolution. These inconsistencies cannot always be resolved immediately. As a result, we argue that a formal framework for the analysis of evolving specifications should be able to tolerate inconsistency by allowing reasoning in the presence of inconsistency without trivialisation, and circumvent inconsistency by enabling impact analyses of potential changes to be carried out. This paper shows how clustered belief revision can help in this process. Clustered belief revision allows for the grouping of requirements with similar functionality into clusters and the assignment of priorities between them. By analysing the result of a cluster, an engineer can either choose to rectify problems in the specification or to postpone the changes until more information becomes available.

Fred: An approach to generating real, correct, reusable programs from proofs

In this paper we describe our system for automatically extracting "correct" programs from proofs using a development of the Curry-Howard process. Although program extraction has been developed by many authors, our system has a number of novel features designed to make it very easy to use and as close as possible to ordinary mathematical terminology and practice. These features include 1. the use of Henkin's technique to reduce higher-order logic to many-sorted (first-order) logic; 2. the free use of new rules for induction subject to certain conditions; 3. the extensive use of previously programmed (total, recursive) functions; 4. the use of templates to make the reasoning much closer to normal mathematical proofs and 5. a conceptual distinction between the computational type theory (for representing programs)and the logical type theory (for reasoning about programs). As an example of our system we give a constructive proof of the well known theorem that every graph of even parity, which is non-trivial in the sense that it does not consist of isolated vertices, has a cycle. Given such a graph as input, the extracted program produces a cycle as promised.

A Compositional Semantics of UML-RSDS

This paper provides a semantics for the UML-RSDS (Reactive System Development Support) subset of UML, using the real-time action logic (RAL) formalism. We show how this semantics can be used to resolve some ambiguities and omissions in UML semantics, and to support reasoning about specifications using the B formal method and tools. We use `semantic profiles' to provide precise semantics for different semantic variation points of UML. We also show how RAL can be used to give a semantics to notations for real-time specification in UML. Unlike other approaches to UML semantics, which concentrate on the class diagram notation, our semantic representation has behaviour as a central element, and can be used to define semantics for use cases, state machines and interactions, in addition to class diagrams.

Coalition Formation through Motivation and Trust

Cooperation is the fundamental underpinning of multi-agent systems, allowing agents to interact to achieve their goals. Where agents are self-interested, or potentially unreliable, there must be appropriate mechanisms to cope with the uncertainty that arises. In particular, agents must manage the risk associated with interacting with others who have different objectives, or who may fail to fulfil their commitments. Previous work has utilised the notions of motivation and trust in engendering successful cooperation between self-interested agents. Motivations provide a means for representing and reasoning about agents' overall objectives, and trust offers a mechanism for modelling and reasoning about reliability, honesty, veracity and so forth. This paper extends that work to address some of its limitations. In particular, we introduce the concept of a clan: a group of agents who trust each other and have similar objectives. Clan members treat each other favourably when making private decisions about cooperation, in order to gain mutual benefit. We describe mechanisms for agents to form, maintain, and dissolve clans in accordance with their self-interested nature, along with giving details of how clan membership influences individual decision making. Finally, through some simulation experiments we illustrate the effectiveness of clan formation in addressing some of the inherent problems with cooperation among self-interested agents.