×

Arguing about informant credibility in open multi-agent systems. (English) Zbl 1445.68236

Summary: This paper proposes the use of an argumentation framework with recursive attacks to address a trust model in a collaborative open multi-agent system. Our approach is focused on scenarios where agents share information about the credibility (informational trust) they have assigned to their peers. We will represent informants’ credibility through credibility objects which will include not only trust information but also the informant source. This leads to a recursive setting where the reliability of certain credibility information depends on the credibility of other pieces of information that should be subject to the same analysis. Credibility objects are maintained in a credibility base which can have information in conflict. In this scenario, we will formally show that our proposal will produce a partially ordered credibility relation; such relation contains the information that can be justified by an argumentation process.

MSC:

68T42 Agent technology and artificial intelligence
03B42 Logics of knowledge and belief (including belief change)
68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence

Software:

AFRA
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI Link

References:

[1] Adali, Sibel, Modeling trust context in networks. Springer briefs in computer science, (2013), Springer
[2] Adali, Sibel; Escriva, Robert; Goldberg, Mark K.; Hayvanovych, Mykola; Magdon-Ismail, Malik; Szymanski, Boleslaw K.; Wallace, William A.; Williams, Gregory Todd, Measuring behavioral trust in social networks, (IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics, ISI 2010, Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 23-26, 2010, Proceedings, (2010)), 150-152
[3] Baroni, Pietro; Cerutti, Federico; Giacomin, Massimiliano; Guida, Giovanni, Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks, (10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Verona, Italy, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5590, (2009), Springer Germany), 83-94 · Zbl 1203.68198
[4] Baroni, Pietro; Cerutti, Federico; Giacomin, Massimiliano; Guida, Giovanni, AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 52, 1, 19-37, (2011) · Zbl 1211.68433
[5] Baroni, Pietro; Giacomin, Massimiliano, Semantics of abstract argument systems, (Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, (2009), Springer), 25-44 · Zbl 1191.68671
[6] Benferhat, Salem; Dubois, Didier; Prade, Henri; Williams, Mary-Anne, A practical approach to revising prioritized knowledge bases, Stud. Log., 1, 70, 105-130, (2002) · Zbl 1004.68165
[7] Boella, Guido; Gabbay, Dov M.; van der Torre, Leendert W. N.; Villata, Serena, Meta-argumentation modelling I: methodology and techniques, Stud. Log., 93, 2-3, 297-355, (2009) · Zbl 1185.68664
[8] Cantwell, John, Resolving conflicting information, J. Log. Lang. Inf., 7, 2, 191-220, (1998) · Zbl 0897.03027
[9] Castelfranchi, Christiano; Falcone, Rino, Trust theory: A socio-cognitive and computational model, vol. 18, (2010), John Wiley & Sons
[10] Cerutti, Federico; Vallati, Mauro; Giacomin, Massimiliano, An efficient Java-based solver for abstract argumentation frameworks: jargsemsat, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools, 26, 2, 1-26, (2017)
[11] da Costa Pereira, Célia; Tettamanzi, Andrea; Villata, Serena, Changing One’s mind: erase or rewind?, (Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2011, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, July 16-22, 2011, (2011)), 164-171
[12] da Costa Pereira, Célia; Tettamanzi, Andrea G. B.; Villata, Serena, A belief-based approach to measuring message acceptability, (Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2016), (September 2016)), 140-154 · Zbl 1366.68297
[13] Dragoni, Aldo; Giorgini, Paolo; Puliti, Paolo, Distributed belief revision versus distributed truth maintenance, (Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (TAI 94), (1994), IEEE Computer Society Press), 499-505
[14] Dung, Phan M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artif. Intell., 77, 2, 321-358, (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[15] Dung, Phan Minh; Mancarella, Paolo; Toni, Francesca, Computing ideal sceptical argumentation, Artif. Intell., 171, 10-15, 642-674, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68564
[16] Fan, Xiuyi; Toni, Francesca, On computing explanations in argumentation, (Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, January 25-30, 2015, Austin, Texas, USA, (2015)), 1496-1502 · Zbl 1335.68249
[17] García, Alejandro Javier; Iván Chesñevar, Carlos; Rotstein, Nicolás D.; Simari, Guillermo Ricardo, Formalizing dialectical explanation support for argument-based reasoning in knowledge-based systems, Expert Syst. Appl., 40, 8, 3233-3247, (2013)
[18] Harwood, William T.; Clark, John A.; Jacob, Jeremy L., Networks of trust and distrust: towards logical reputation systems, (Logics in Security, (2010))
[19] Harwood, William T.; Clark, John A.; Jacob, Jeremy L., A perspective on trust, security and autonomous systems, (New Security Paradigms Workshop, (2010))
[20] Dong Huynh, Trung; Jennings, Nicholas R.; Shadbolt, Nigel R., An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems, Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., 13, 2, 119-154, (2006)
[21] Jøsang, Audun; Ismail, Roslan; Boyd, Colin, A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision, Decis. Support Syst., 43, 2, 618-644, (2007)
[22] Koster, Andrew; Bazzan, Ana L. C.; de Souza, Marcelo, Liar liar, pants on fire, or how to use subjective logic and argumentation to evaluate information from untrustworthy sources, Artif. Intell. Rev., 48, 2, 219-235, (2017)
[23] Koster, Andrew; Sabater-Mir, Jordi; Schorlemmer, W. Marco, Personalizing communication about trust, (International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2012, Valencia, Spain, June 4-8, 2012, vol. 3, (2012)), 517-524
[24] Krümpelmann, Patrick; Tamargo, Luciano H.; García, Alejandro J.; Falappa, Marcelo A., Forwarding credible information in multi-agent systems, (Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management (KSEM 2009), November 2009, LNCS, vol. 5914, (2009)), 41-53
[25] Luck, Michael; McBurney, Peter; Shehory, Onn; Willmott, Steve, Agent technology: computing as interaction (A roadmap for agent based computing), (2005)
[26] Takis Metaxas, Panagiotis; Mustafaraj, Eni; Wong, Kily; Zeng, Laura; O’Keefe, Megan; Finn, Samantha, What do retweets indicate? results from user survey and meta-review of research, (Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2015, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, May 26-29, 2015, (2015)), 658-661
[27] Parsons, Simon; Sklar, Elizabeth; McBurney, Peter, Using argumentation to reason with and about trust, (Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems - 8th International Workshop, ArgMAS 2011, Taipei, Taiwan, May 3, 2011, (2011)), 194-212, Revised Selected Papers
[28] Pinyol, Isaac; Sabater-Mir, Jordi, Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review, Artif. Intell. Rev., 40, 1, 1-25, (2013)
[29] Prade, Henri, A qualitative bipolar argumentative view of trust, (Scalable Uncertainty Management, First International Conference, SUM 2007, Washington, DC, USA, October 10-12, 2007, Proceedings, (2007)), 268-276
[30] Rahwan, Iyad; Simari, Guillermo R., Argumentation in artificial intelligence, (2009), Springer Heidelberg, Germany
[31] Ramchurn, Sarvapali D.; Dong Huynh, Trung; Jennings, Nicholas R., Trust in multi-agent systems, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 19, 1, 1-25, (2004), 003
[32] Sabater-Mir, Jordi; Sierra, Carles, Review on computational trust and reputation models, Artif. Intell. Rev., 24, 1, 33-60, (2005) · Zbl 1138.68580
[33] Sabater-Mir, Jordi; Vercouter, Laurent, Book chapter 9: trust and reputation in multiagent systems, (Multiagent Systems, (2013), MIT Press), 381-420
[34] Sparks, Jesse R.; Rapp, David N., Unreliable and anomalous: how the credibility of data affects belief revision, (Carlson, Laura A.; Hölscher, Christoph; Shipley, Thomas F., Proceedings of the 33th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, July 20-23, 2011, (2011)), cognitivesciencesociety.org
[35] Tamargo, Luciano H.; García, Alejandro J.; Falappa, Marcelo A.; Simari, Guillermo R., Modeling knowledge dynamics in multi-agent systems based on informants, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 27, 1, 87-114, (2012)
[36] Tamargo, Luciano H.; García, Alejandro Javier; Falappa, Marcelo A.; Simari, Guillermo R., On the revision of informant credibility orders, Artif. Intell., 212, 36-58, (2014) · Zbl 1405.68368
[37] Tamargo, Luciano H.; Gottifredi, Sebastian; García, Alejandro J.; Simari, Guillermo R., Sharing beliefs among agents with different degrees of credibility, Knowl. Inf. Syst., 47, 43, 1-33, (2016)
[38] Tang, Yuqing; Cai, Kai; McBurney, Peter; Sklar, Elizabeth; Parsons, Simon, Using argumentation to reason about trust and belief, J. Log. Comput., 22, 5, 979-1018, (2012) · Zbl 1280.68264
[39] Tavakolifard, Mozhgan; Almeroth, Kevin C.; Atle Gulla, Jon, Does social contact matter?: modelling the hidden web of trust underlying twitter, (22nd International World Wide Web Conference, WWW ’13, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 13-17, 2013, Companion Volume, (2013)), 981-988
[40] Thimm, Matthias; Villata, Serena; Cerutti, Federico; Oren, Nir; Strass, Hannes; Vallati, Mauro, Summary report of the first international competition on computational models of argumentation, AI Mag., 37, 1, 102, (2016)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.