Advertisement

Goal Generation from Possibilistic Beliefs Based on Trust and Distrust

  • Célia da Costa Pereira
  • Andrea G. B. Tettamanzi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5948)

Abstract

The extent to which a rational agent changes its beliefs may depend on several factors like the trustworthiness of the source of new information, the agent’s competence in judging the truth of new information, the mental spirit of the agent (optimistic, pessimistic, pragmatic, etc), the agent’s attitude towards information coming from unknown sources, or sources the agent knows as being malicious, or sources the agent knows as providers of usually correct information, and so on.

We propose and discuss three different agent’s belief behaviors to be used in a goal (desire) generation and adoption framework. The originality of the proposals is that the trustworthiness of a source depends not only on the degree of trust but also on an independent degree of distrust. Explicitly taking distrust into account allows us to mark a clear difference between the distinct notions of negative trust and insufficient trust. More precisely, it is possible, unlike in approaches where only trust is accounted for, to “weigh” differently information from helpful, malicious, unknown, or neutral sources.

Keywords

Membership Degree Goal Generation Incoming Information Possibility Distribution Possibility Theory 
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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Atanassov, K.T.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20(1), 87–96 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben-Naim, J., Prade, H.: Evaluating trustworthiness from past performances: Interval-based approaches. In: Greco, S., Lukasiewicz, T. (eds.) SUM 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5291, pp. 33–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casali, A., Godo, L., Sierra, C.: Graded BDI models for agent architectures. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3487, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Reasons: Belief support and goal dynamics. Mathware and Soft Computing 3, 233–247 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R., Pezzulo, G.: Trust in information sources as a source for trust: a fuzzy approach. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2003, pp. 89–96 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artif. Intell. 42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    da Costa Pereira, C., Tettamanzi, A.: Goal generation and adoption from partially trusted beliefs. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2008, pp. 453–457. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    De Cock, M., da Silva, P.P.: A many valued representation and propagation of trust and distrust. In: Bloch, I., Petrosino, A., Tettamanzi, A.G.B. (eds.) WILF 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3849, pp. 114–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deschrijver, G., Kerre, E.E.: On the relationship between some extensions of fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 133(2), 227–235 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dignum, F., Kinny, D.N., Sonenberg, E.A.: From desires, obligations and norms to goals. Cognitive Science Quarterly Journal 2(3-4), 407–427 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory, probability theory and multiple-valued logics: A clarification. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 32(1-4), 35–66 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: An introduction to bipolar representations of information and preference. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(8), 866–877 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fullam, K.K., Barber, K.S.: Using policies for information valuation to justify beliefs. In: AAMAS 2004, pp. 404–411. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Griffiths, N.: A fuzzy approach to reasoning with trust, distrust and insufficient trust. In: Klusch, M., Rovatsos, M., Payne, T.R. (eds.) CIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4149, pp. 360–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansson, S.O.: Ten philosophical problems in belief revision. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(1), 37–49 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacquemet, N., Rullière, J.-L., Vialle, I.: Monitoring optimistic agents. Technical report, Université Paris 1 Sorbonne-Panthéon (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liau, C.-J.: Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems: a modal logic formulation. Artif. Intell. 149(1), 31–60 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGuinness, B., Leggatt, A.: Information trust and distrust in a sensemaking task. In: Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L.: Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Deception, Fraud, and Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 27–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Intersex Society of North America, http://www.isna.org/
  22. 22.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: KR 1991, pp. 473–484 (1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomason, R.H.: Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In: Proceedings of KR 2000, pp. 702–713 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Türksen, I.B.: Interval valued fuzzy sets based on normal forms. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20(2), 191–210 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wellman, M.P., Doyle, J.: Preferential semantics for goals. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1991, vol. 2, pp. 698–703 (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338–353 (1965)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1, 3–28 (1978)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Célia da Costa Pereira
    • 1
  • Andrea G. B. Tettamanzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Tecnologie dell’InformazioneUniversità degli Studi di MilanoCremaItaly

Personalised recommendations