Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sharing beliefs among agents with different degrees of credibility

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper introduces an approach for sharing beliefs in collaborative multi-agent application domains where some agents can be more credible than others. In this context, we propose a formalization where every agent has its own partial order among its peers representing the credibility the agent assigns to its informants; each agent will also have a belief base where each sentence is attached with an agent identifier which represents the credibility of that sentence. We define four different forwarding criteria for computing the credibility information for a belief to be forwarded, and for determining how the receiver should handle the incoming information; the proposal considers both the sender’s and the receiver’s points of view with respect to the credibility of the source of the information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sabater J, Sierra C (2005) Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artif Intell Rev 24(1):33–60

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Dellarocas C (2003) The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Manag Sci 49:1407–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Grandison T, Sloman M (2000) A survey of trust in internet applications. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 3(4):2–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Montaner M, López B, de la Rosa JL (2002) Developing trust in recommender agents. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS 2002, July 15–19, 2002, Bologna, pp 304–305

  5. Cantwell J (1998) Resolving conflicting information. J Log Lang Inf 7(2):191–220

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Dragoni A, Giorgini P, Puliti P (1994) Distributed belief revision versus distributed truth maintenance. In: Proceedings of the sixth IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (TAI 94). IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 499–505

  7. Harwood WT, Clark JA, Jacob JL (2010) Networks of trust and distrust: towards logical reputation systems. In: Gabbay DM, van der Torre L (eds) Logics in Security, Copenhagen, Denmark

  8. Krümpelmann P, Tamargo LH, García AJ, Falappa MA (2009) Forwarding credible information in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on knowledge science, engineering and management (KSEM 2009), 5914/2009:41–53. Nov 2009

  9. Tamargo LH, García AJ, Falappa MA, Simari GR (2012) Modeling knowledge dynamics in multi-agent systems based on informants. Knowl Eng Rev (KER) 27(1):87–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tamargo LH, García AJ, Falappa MA, Simari GR (2014) On the revision of informant credibility orders. Artif Intell 212:36–58

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Chalupsky H, Finin T, Fritzson R, McKay D, Shapiro S, Weiderhold G (1992) An overview of KQML. Technical Report

  12. Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Alchourrón C, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: safe contraction. Stud Log 44:405–422

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Hansson SO (1994) Kernel contraction. J Symb Log 59:845–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jaccard P (1912) The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytol 11(1):37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dragoni A, Giorgini P, Baffetti M (1997) Distributed belief revision vs. belief revision in a multi-agent environment: first results of a simulation experiment. In: Boman M, Van de Velde W (eds) Multi-agent rationality. Springer, New York, pp 45–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Dragoni AF, Giorgini P (1996) Belief revision through the belief-function formalism in a multi-agent environment. Intelligent agents III agent theories, architectures, and languages. Springer, New York, pp 103–115

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dragoni AF, Giorgini P (2003) Distributed belief revision. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 6(2):115–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Benferhat S, Dubois D, Prade H, Williams MA (2002) A practical approach to revising prioritized knowledge bases. Stud Log 1(70):105–130

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Liau CJ (2003) Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems-a modal logic formulation. Artif Intell 149(1):31–60

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Luke Teacy WT, Luck M, Rogers A, Jennings NR (2012) An efficient and versatile approach to trust and reputation using hierarchical bayesian modelling. Artif Intell 193:149–185

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Luke Teacy WT, Patel J, Jennings NR, Luck M (2006) TRAVOS: trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 12(2):183–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cholvy L (2011) How strong can an agent believe reported information? In: Proceedings of the Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty: 11th European conference, ECSQARU 2011, Belfast, UK, June 29–July 1, 2011, pp 386–397

  24. Parsons S, Sklar E, McBurney P (2011) Using argumentation to reason with and about trust. In: Argumentation in multi-agent systems—8th international workshop, ArgMAS 2011, Taipei, May 3, 2011, Revised Selected Papers. pp 194–212

  25. Tang Y, Cai K, McBurney P, Sklar E, Parsons S (2012) Using argumentation to reason about trust and belief. J Log Comput 22(5):979–1018

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Harwood WT, Clark JA, Jacob JL (2010) A perspective on trust, security and autonomous systems. In: New security paradigms workshop

  27. Soto JP, Vizcaíno A, Portillo-Rodríguez J, Piattini M (2007) Applying trust, reputation and intuition aspects to support virtual communities of practice. In: Proceedings of the knowledge-based intelligent information and engineering systems, 11th international conference, KES 2007, XVII Italian workshop on neural networks, Vietri sul Mare, Part II, Sept 12–14, 2007, pp 353–360

  28. Vizcaíno A, Portillo-Rodríguez J, Soto JP, Piattini M (2009) Encouraging the reuse of knowledge in communities of practice by using a trust model. In: International conference on information, process, and knowledge management, eKNOW 2009, Cancun, Feb 1–7, 2009, pp 28–33

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación (UNS-CONICET), Universidad Nacional del Sur, Avenida Alem 1253, 8000, Bahía Blanca, Argentina

    Luciano H. Tamargo, Sebastian Gottifredi, Alejandro J. García & Guillermo R. Simari

Authors
  1. Luciano H. Tamargo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Gottifredi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alejandro J. García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guillermo R. Simari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandro J. García.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research was funded by PGI-UNS (Grants 24/N035, 24/N030) and PIP-CONICET (Grant 112-201101-01000).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tamargo, L.H., Gottifredi, S., García, A.J. et al. Sharing beliefs among agents with different degrees of credibility. Knowl Inf Syst 50, 999–1031 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-016-0964-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-016-0964-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation