Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence

JELIA 2021: Logics in Artificial Intelligence pp 50–65Cite as

Trust Is All You Need: From Belief Revision to Information Revision

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 586 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 12678))

Abstract

Belief revision is a hallmark of knowledge representation, logic, and philosophy. However, despite the extensive research in the area, we believe a fresh take on belief revision is needed. To that end, it is our conviction that believing a piece of information depends on trust in information sources that conveyed said piece and that trust in information sources is affected by changes in beliefs. Trust is also an impress of philosophy and all time favorite of psychology and multi-agent systems. Hence, many approaches were developed for trust representation, yet, in isolation from belief revision. While admittedly crucial to a realistic treatment of belief revision, trust revision, to our dismay, did not receive the same level of attention. In this paper, we argue that a formal treatment for the joint interdependent revision of belief and trust is called for. Moreover, we propose a new framework called information revision that captures the joint revision of belief and trust. Further, we provide postulates that govern such process of revision. Finally, we provide a class of operators called relevant change propagation operators and provide their representation theorem.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This work builds on foundations proposed in [29, 30].

  2. 2.

    \(\mathcal {D}_b\) and \(\mathcal {D}_t\) are usually the same; however, a qualitative account of trust and belief might have different sets for grading the two attitudes.

  3. 3.

    Information states contain trust bases and histories to model languages where trust and conveyance are part of the object language as well as those which do not have trust and conveyance as part of the object language.

  4. 4.

    Thus, relevance is the reflexive, symmetric, transitive closure of E.

  5. 5.

    Due to space limitations, we were not able to provide most of our results and all proofs in this paper. However, the main proofs could be found in this online appendix: proofs.

  6. 6.

    If a formula is relevant to \(\lnot \phi \) directly and not just to a formula in a kernel of \(\lnot \phi \), the postulate still holds because \(\{\lnot \phi \}\) is trivially a \(\lnot \phi \)-kernel.

References

  1. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbol. Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Alchourrón, C.E., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria 48(1), 14–37 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Barber, K.S., Kim, J.: Belief revision process based on trust: agents evaluating reputation of information sources. In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.H. (eds.) Trust Cyber-Soc., pp. 73–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Booth, R., Hunter, A.: Trust as a precursor to belief revision. J. Artif. Intell. Res 61, 699–722 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Principles of trust for MAS: cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In: Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No. 98EX160), pp. 72–79. IEEE (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust is much more than subjective probability: mental components and sources of trust. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 10. IEEE (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artif. Intell. 89(1–2), 1–29 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Social trust: A cognitive approach. In: Trust and deception in virtual societies, pp. 55–90. Springer (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, TARK 1988, pp. 83–95. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hansson, S.O.: Belief contraction without recovery. Studia logica 50(2), 251–260 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Hansson, S.O.: Kernel contraction. J. Symb. Logic 59(3), 845–859 (1994). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2275912

  12. Hansson, S.O.: A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis 50(2–3), 413–427 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Hansson, S.O.: Ten philosophical problems in belief revision. J. Logic Comput. 13(1), 37–49 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Hardwig, J.: The role of trust in knowledge. J. Philos. 88(12), 693–708 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Holton, R.: Deciding to trust, coming to believe. Aust. J. Philos. 72(1), 63–76 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huynh, T.D., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N.R.: An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 13(2), 119–154 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 (LNAI), vol. 1647, pp. 221–231. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48437-X_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Jøsang, A., Hayward, R., Pope, S.: Trust network analysis with subjective logic. In: Proceedings of the 29th Australasian Computer Science Conference, vol. 48, pp. 85–94. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jøsang, A., Ivanovska, M., Muller, T.: Trust revision for conflicting sources. In: 2015 18th International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion), pp. 550–557. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52(3), 263–294 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Lorini, E., Jiang, G., Perrussel, L.: Trust-based belief change. In: Schaub, T., Friedrich, G., O’Sullivan, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2014). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263, pp. 549–554. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. McLeod, C.: Trust. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, fall 2015 edn. (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Niederée, R.: Multiple contraction a further case against gärdenfors’ principle of recovery. In: Fuhrmann, A., Morreau, M. (eds.) The Logic of Theory Change. LNCS, vol. 465, pp. 322–334. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0018427

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Ramchurn, S.D., Huynh, D., Jennings, N.R.: Trust in multi-agent systems. Knowle. Eng. Rev. 19(1), 1–25 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rott, H.: Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment. J. Logic Lang. Inf. 1(1), 45–78 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Tamargo, L.H., García, A.J., Falappa, M.A., Simari, G.R.: On the revision of informant credibility orders. Artif. Intell. 212, 36–58 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Tamargo, L.H., Gottifredi, S., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Sharing beliefs among agents with different degrees of credibility. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 50(3), 999–1031 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-016-0964-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tarski, A.: Logic semantics, metamathematics papers from 1923 to 1938. Translated by JH Woodger (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yasser, A., Ismail, H.O.: On the joint revision of belief and trust. In: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Formal and Cognitive Reasoning (FCR) Co-Located with the 43rd German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI 2020), Bamberg, Germany, 21–25 September 2020, pp. 55–68. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2680/paper5.pdf

  30. Yasser, A., Ismail, H.O.: Information revision: the joint revision of belief and trust. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR2020), pp. 150–160 (2020). https://nmr2020.dc.uba.ar/WorkshopNotes.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German University in Cairo, New Cairo, Egypt

    Ammar Yasser & Haythem O. Ismail

  2. Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

    Haythem O. Ismail

Authors
  1. Ammar Yasser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haythem O. Ismail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ammar Yasser .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Wolfgang Faber

  2. University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Gerhard Friedrich

  3. University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Martin Gebser

  4. University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Michael Morak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Yasser, A., Ismail, H.O. (2021). Trust Is All You Need: From Belief Revision to Information Revision. In: Faber, W., Friedrich, G., Gebser, M., Morak, M. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12678. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75775-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75775-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75774-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75775-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation