From Trust in Information Sources to Trust in Communication Systems:An Analysis in Modal Logic

  • Emiliano Lorini
  • Robert Demolombe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5605)


We present a logical analysis of trust that integrates in the definition of trust: the truster’s goal and the truster’s belief that the trustee has the right properties (powers, abilities, dispositions) to ensure that the goal will be achieved. The second part of the paper is focused on the specific domain of trust in information sources and communication systems. We provide an analysis of the properties of information sources (validity, completeness, sincerity and cooperativity) and communication systems (availability and privacy) and, we discuss their relationships with trust.


Communication System Information Source Modal Logic Multiagent System Deontic Logic 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Åqvist, L.: Deontic logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Geunther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L., Solecki, S.: The logic of public announcements, common knowledge and private suspicions. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 1998), pp. 43–56. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bieber, P., Cuppens, F.: Expression of confidentiality policies with deontic logic. In: Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification, pp. 103–123. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bratman, M.: Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burrows, M., Abadi, M., Needham, R.M.: A logic of authentication. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 8(1), 18–36 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Principles of trust for MAS: Cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multiagent Systems (ICMAS 1998), pp. 72–79 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cuppens, F., Demolombe, R.: A Deontic Logic for Reasoning about Confidentiality. In: Proceedings of Third International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON 1996), Workshops in Computing, pp. 66–79. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dastani, M., Herzig, A., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Inferring trust. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3487, pp. 144–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demolombe, R.: To trust information sources: a proposal for a modal logical framework. In: Castelfranchi, C., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deutsch, M.: Trust and suspicion. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 2(4), 265–279 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Social trust: A cognitive approach. In: Castelfranchi, C., Tan, Y.H. (eds.) Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, pp. 55–90. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fasli, M.: Agent Technology for E-commerce. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerbrandy, J., Groeneveld, W.: Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 6, 147–196 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hammer, J.H., Schneider, G.: On the Definition and Policies of Confidentiality. In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Information Assurance and Security (IAS 2007), pp. 337–342. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herzig, A., Lorini, E., Hubner, J.F., Ben-Naim, J., Castelfranchi, C., Demolombe, R., Longin, D., Vercouter, L.: Prolegomena for a logic of trust and reputation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Normative Multiagent Systems, NorMAS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huynh, T.G., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N.R.: An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Journal of Autonomous Agent and Multi-Agent Systems 13, 119–154 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones, A.J.I.: On the concept of trust. Decision Support Systems 33(3), 225–232 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Formal analysis of models for the dynamics of trust based on experiences. In: Garijo, F.J., Boman, M. (eds.) MAAMAW 1999. LNCS, vol. 1647, pp. 221–231. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liau, C.J.: Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems: a modal logic formulation. Artificial Intelligence 149, 31–60 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lorini, E., Demolombe, R.: Trust and norms in the context of computer security. In: van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) DEON 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5076, pp. 50–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lorini, E., Herzig, A.: A logic of intention and attempt. Synthese 163(1), 45–77 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marsh, S.: Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. PhD thesis, University of Stirling (1994)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mcllraith, S.A., Son, T.C., Zeng, H.: Semantic web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 46–53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meyer, J.-J.Ch., van der Hoek, W., van Linder, B.: A logical approach to the dynamics of commitments. Artificial Intelligence 113(1-2), 1–40 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modelling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1991), pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Regret: a reputation model for gregarious societies. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 475–482. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emiliano Lorini
    • 1
  • Robert Demolombe
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT)France

Personalised recommendations