ATAL 2001: Intelligent Agents VIII pp 290-306 | Cite as
Trustworthiness of Information Sources and Information Pedigrees
Conference paper
First Online:
Abstract
To survive, and indeed thrive, in an open heterogenous information sharing environment, an agent’s ability to evaluate the trustworthiness of other agents becomes crucial. In this paper, we investigate a procedure for evaluating an agent’s trustworthiness as an information source. By separating the procedure into competency analysis and sincerity analysis, we are able to deal with complicated cases involving the passing-on of information, where the same information may reach a receiver agent via different routes. In order to keep information about the source agent we use an information pedigree as a means to maintain the history of communicated information. Our evaluation of trustworthiness can be employed to drive data fusion, weighted knowledge base merging, and multiple source conflict resolution.
Keywords
Information Source Belief Revision Trust Evaluation Information Pedigree Real Estate Agent
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.John Cantwell. Resolving conflicting information. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 7:191–220, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 2.Cristiano Castelfranchi and Rino Falcone. Principles of trust for mas: Cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In Y Demazeau, editor, the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 72–79, Los Alamitos, 1998. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
- 3.R. Demolombe. To trust information sources: a proposal for a modal logical framework. In C. Castelfranchi and Y-H. Tan, editors, the First International Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Minneapolis/St Paul, USA, 1998.Google Scholar
- 4.Bruce Edmonds. Modelling socially intelligent agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 12:677–699, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.G Elofson. Developing trust with intelligent agents: An exploratory study. In C. Castelfranchi and Y-H. Tan, editors, the First International Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pages 125–139, Minneapolis/St Paul, USA, 1998.Google Scholar
- 6.Peter Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux-Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, London, 1988.Google Scholar
- 7.Piotr J. Gmytrasiewicz and Edmund H. Durfee. Toward a theory of honesty and trust among communicating autonomous agents. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2:237–258, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.John Hardwig. The role of trust in knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 88:693–708, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.N. R. Jennings. On being responsible. In E. Werner and Y. Demazeau, editors, Decentralized AI 3 — Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Worlds (MAAMAW-91), pages 93–102, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
- 10.N. R. Jennings. On agent-based software engineering. Artificial Intelligence, 117(2):277–296, 2000.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 11.Catholijn M. Jonker and Jan Treur. Formal analysis of models for the dynamics of trust based on experiences. In Francisco J. Garijo and Magnus Boman, editors, the 9th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World: Multi-Agent System Engineering (MAAMAW-99), volume 1647, pages 221–231, Berlin, 1999. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
- 12.Wei Liu and Mary Anne Williams. A framework for multi-agent belief revision (part i: The role of ontology). In Norman Foo, editor, 12th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Sydney, Australia, 1999. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 13.Wei Liu and Mary Anne Williams. A framework for multi-agent belief revision (part ii: A layered model and shared knowledge structure). In Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, Uncertainty Frameworks in NMR2000, http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/etai/ufn/received/sframe.html, 2000.
- 14.Wei Liu and Mary Anne Williams. A framework for multi-agent belief revision. Studia Logica, 67(2):291–312, 2001.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 15.Pierre Marquis and Nadège Porquet. Decomposing propositional knowledge bases through topics. In Partial Knowledge And Uncertainty: Independence, Conditioning, Inference, Rome, Italy, 2000.Google Scholar
- 16.Stephen Paul Marsh. Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. For the degree of doctor of philosophy, University of Stirling, 1994.Google Scholar
- 17.Glenn Shafer, editor. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Prinston University Press, New Jersey, 1976.MATHGoogle Scholar
- 18.Mary Anne Williams. Transmutation of knowledge systems. In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso, editors, 4th International Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 619–629. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1994.Google Scholar
- 19.Mary Anne Williams and Aidan Sims. Saten: An object-oriented web-based revision and extraction engine. In International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR’2000)., Online Computer Science Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.AI/0003059/, 2000.
Copyright information
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002