DODGE: Ontology-Aware Risk Assessment via Object-Oriented Disruption Graphs

When considering risky events or actions, we must not downplay the role of involved objects: a charged battery in our phone averts the risk of being stranded in the desert after a flat tyre, and a functional firewall mitigates the risk of a hacker intruding the network. The Common Ontology of Value and Risk (COVER) highlights how the role of objects and their relationships remains pivotal to performing transparent, complete and accountable risk assessment. In this paper, we operationalize some of the notions proposed by COVER -- such as parthood between objects and participation of objects in events/actions -- by presenting a new framework for risk assessment: DODGE. DODGE enriches the expressivity of vetted formal models for risk -- i.e., fault trees and attack trees -- by bridging the disciplines of ontology and formal methods into an ontology-aware formal framework composed by a more expressive modelling formalism, Object-Oriented Disruption Graphs (ODGs), logic (ODGLog) and an intermediate query language (ODGLang). With these, DODGE allows risk assessors to pose questions about disruption propagation, disruption likelihood and risk levels, keeping the fundamental role of objects at risk always in sight.

Considerations on Approaches and Metrics in Automated Theorem Generation/Finding in Geometry

The pursue of what are properties that can be identified to permit an automated reasoning program to generate and find new and interesting theorems is an interesting research goal (pun intended). The automatic discovery of new theorems is a goal in itself, and it has been addressed in specific areas, with different methods. The separation of the "weeds", uninteresting, trivial facts, from the "wheat", new and interesting facts, is much harder, but is also being addressed by different authors using different approaches. In this paper we will focus on geometry. We present and discuss different approaches for the automatic discovery of geometric theorems (and properties), and different metrics to find the interesting theorems among all those that were generated. After this description we will introduce the first result of this article: an undecidability result proving that having an algorithmic procedure that decides for every possible Turing Machine that produces theorems, whether it is able to produce also interesting theorems, is an undecidable problem. Consequently, we will argue that judging whether a theorem prover is able to produce interesting theorems remains a non deterministic task, at best a task to be addressed by program based in an algorithm guided by heuristics criteria. Therefore, as a human, to satisfy this task two things are necessary: an expert survey that sheds light on what a theorem prover/finder of interesting geometric theorems is, and - to enable this analysis - other surveys that clarify metrics and approaches related to the interestingness of geometric theorems. In the conclusion of this article we will introduce the structure of two of these surveys - the second result of this article - and we will discuss some future work.