Belief Revision Process Based on Trust: Agents Evaluating Reputation of Information Sources

  • K. Suzanne Barber
  • Joonoo Kim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2246)


In this paper, we propose a multi-agent belief revision algorithm that utilizes knowledge about the reliability or trustworthiness (reputation) of information sources1. Incorporating reliability information into belief revision mechanisms is essential for agents in real world multi-agent systems. This research assumes the global truth is not available to individual agents and agents only maintain a local subjective perspective, which often is different from the perspective of others. This assumption is true for many domains where the global truth is not available (or infeasible to acquire and maintain) and the cost of collecting and maintaining a centralized global perspective is prohibitive. As an agent builds its local perspective, the variance on the quality of the incoming information depends on the originating information sources. Modeling the quality of incoming information is useful regardless of the level and type of security in a given system. This paper introduces the definition of the trust as the agent’s confidence in the ability and intention of an information source to deliver correct information and reputation as the amount of trust an information source has created for itself through interactions with other agents. This economical (or monetary) perspective of reputation, viewing reputation as an asset, serves as social law that mandates staying trustworthy to other agents. Algorithms (direct and indirect) maintaining the model of the reputations of other information sources are also introduced.


Multi-agent belief revision trust management reputation Bayesian belief networks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D.: On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50 (1985) 510–530.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barber, K. S. and Martin, C. E.: Agent Autonomy: Specification, Measurement, and Dynamic Adjustment. In Proceedings of Autonomy Control Software Workshop at the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents-99) (Seattle, WA, 1999) 8–15.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barber, K. S., McKay, R. M., MacMahon, M. T., Martin, C. E., Lam, D. N., Goel, A., Han, D. C., and Kim, J.: Sensible Agents: An Implemented Multi-Agent System and Testbed. In Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents-2001) (Montreal, QC, Canada, 2001) 92–99.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boutilier, C.: Generalized update: belief change in dynamic settings. In Proceedings of IJCAI’ 95 (1995) 1550–1556.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boutilier, C.: Iterated Revision and Minimal Revision of Conditional Beliefs. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25 (1996) 263–305.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cordier, M.-O. and Lang, J.: Linking transitionbased update and base revision. In Proceedings of ECSQARU’ 95 (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1995) 133–141.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cronk, L.: Communication as manipulation: Implications for biosociological research. In Proceedings of American Sociological Association Annual Meetings (Cincinnati, Ohio, 1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Darwiche, A. and Pearl, J.: On the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision. 89, 1–2 (1997) 1–29.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dragoni, A. D. and Giorgini, P.: Belief Revision Through the Belief-function Formalism in a Multi-Agents Environment. In Proceedings of Intelligent Agents III, Agents Theories, Architectures, and Languages: ECAI’96 Workshop (Budapest, Hungary, 1996) Springer, 103–115.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    He, Q., Sycara, K. P., and Finin, T. W.: Personal Security Agents: KQML-Based PKI. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, 1998) ACM Press, 377–384.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A. O.: On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Database and Revising It. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91) (1991) Morgan Kaufmann, 387–394.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neapolitan, R. E. Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems: Theory and Algorithms. Wiley, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rasmusson, L. and Janson, S.: Simulated social control for secure Internet commerce. In Proceedings of New Security Paradigms’ 96 (1996) ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raven, B. H.: A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7 (1992) 217–244.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reagle Jr., J. M. Trust in a cryptographic economy and digital security deposits: Protocols and policies. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Technology and Policy, MIT, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reggia, J. A., Nau, D. S., and Wang, P.: Diagnostic expert systems based on a set covering model. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 19, 3 (1983) 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wong, H. C. and Sycara, K.: Adding Security and Trust to Multi-Agent Systems. In Proceedings of Workshop on Deception, Fraud, and Trust in Agent Societies at The Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents-99) (1999) 149–161.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yahalom, R., Klein, B., and Beth, T.: Trust relationships in secure systems-A Distributed authentication perspective. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 1993 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy (1993) 153.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Suzanne Barber
    • 1
  • Joonoo Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.The Laboratory for Intelligent Processes and Systems Electrical and Computer EngineeringThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations