Arguing about the Trustworthiness of the Information Sources

  • Serena Villata
  • Guido Boella
  • Dov M. Gabbay
  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6717)


Trust minimizes the uncertainty in the interactions among the information sources. To express the possibly conflicting motivations about trust and distrust, we reason about trust using argumentation theory. First, we show how to model the sources and how to attack untrustworthy sources. Second, we provide a focused representation of trust about the sources in which trust concerns not only the sources but also the information items and the relation with other information.


Information Source Multiagent System Information Item Argumentation Theory Abstract Argument 
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.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-argumentation modelling I: Methodology and techniques. Studia Logica 93(2-3), 297–355 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: On the acceptability of meta-arguments. In: Procs. of IAT, pp. 259–262. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model. Wiley, Chichester (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gambetta, D.: Can we trust them? Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, 213–238 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 215–261 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liau, C.-J.: Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems–A modal logic formulation. Artif. Intell. 149(1), 31–60 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matt, P.-A., Morge, M., Toni, F.: Combining statistics and arguments to compute trust. In: Procs. of AAMAS, pp. 209–216 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.: Metalevel argumentation. Technical report (2009),
  12. 12.
    Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Sklar, E.: Reasoning about trust using argumentation: A position paper. In: Procs. of ArgMAS (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prade, H.: A qualitative bipolar argumentative view of trust. In: Prade, H., Subrahmanian, V.S. (eds.) SUM 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4772, pp. 268–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Technical Report UU-CS-2009-019, Utrecht University (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tang, Y., Cai, K., Sklar, E., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: A system of argumentation for reasoning about trust. In: Procs. of EUMAS (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Villata, S.: Meta-Argumentation for Multiagent Systems: Coalition Formation, Merging Views, Subsumption Relation and Dependence Networks. PhD thesis, University of Turin (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serena Villata
    • 1
  • Guido Boella
    • 1
  • Dov M. Gabbay
    • 2
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversita di TorinoItaly
  2. 2.King’s CollegeLondonUK
  3. 3.CSCUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations