Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preserving confidentiality while reacting on iterated queries and belief revisions

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In multiagent systems, agents interact and in particular exchange information to achieve a joint goal, e.g., arrange a meeting, negotiate a sales contract etc. An agent, as a rational reasoner, is able to incorporate new information into her belief about her environment (belief revision) or to share her belief with other agents (query answering). Our agent model is based on a common line of research where belief revision is seen as the process of nonmonotonic reasoning from the available information. Yet, such an agent might be interested to hide confidential parts of her belief from another requesting agent and, thus, must control the respective reaction to a revision or query request. As our first contribution, we define the confidentiality aims of the reacting agent and postulate the requesting agent’s capabilities in attacking these interests. In particular, we study an operator by means of which the requesting agent attempts to skeptically entail confidential beliefs of the reacting agent from observed reactions. This skeptical entailment operator is based on a class of nonmonotonic consequence relations such that the reacting agent’s reasoning is implemented as an instance of this class. As our second contribution, we give an algorithmic solution for the reacting agent to enforce her confidentiality aims. To this end, we show how skeptical entailment could be computed via deduction with respect to an appropriate axiomatization of the class of consequence relations on which skeptical entailment is based. In particular, we present control procedures using the skeptical entailment operator and prove that these procedures effectively enforce confidentiality by means of refusal even if the requesting agent also takes their execution into consideration (meta-inference).

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anand, K.S., Goyal, M.: Strategic information management under leakage in a supply chain. Manag. Sci. 55(3), 438–452 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Banerjee, M., Dubois, D.: A simple modal logic for reasoning about revealed beliefs. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 805–816. Springer (2009)

  3. Beierle, C., Kern-Isberner, G.: A conceptual agent model based on a uniform approach to various belief operations. In: Mertsching, B., Hund, M., Aziz, M.Z. (eds.) KI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5803, pp. 273–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, conditional objects and possibility theory. Artif. Intell. 92(1–2), 259–276 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Bezzazi, H., Makinson, D., Pérez, R.P.: Beyond rational monotony: some strong non-Horn rules for nonmonotonic inference relations. J. Log. Comput. 7(5), 605–631 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Biskup, J.: Usability confinement of server reactions: maintaining inference-proof client views by controlled interaction execution. In: Kikuchi, S., Sachdeva, S., Bhalla, S. (eds.) DNIS 2010. LNCS, vol. 5999, pp. 80–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Biskup, J.: Inference-usability confinement by maintaining inference-proof views of an information system. IJCSE 7(1), 17–37 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Biskup, J., Bonatti, P.A.: Controlled query evaluation for enforcing confidentiality in complete information systems. Int. J. Inf. Sec. 3(1), 14–27 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Biskup, J., Gogolin, C., Seiler, J., Weibert, T.: Inference-proof view update transactions with forwarded refreshments. J. Comput. Secur. 19(3), 487–529 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Biskup, J., Kern-Isberner, G., Thimm, M.: Towards enforcement of confidentiality in agent interactions. In: Pagnucco, M., Thielscher, M. (eds.) NMR 2008, pp. 104–112. The University of New South Wales (2008)

  11. Biskup, J., Tadros, C.: Policy-based secrecy in the Runs & Systems framework and controlled query evaluation. In: Echizen, I., Kunihiro, N., Sasaki, R. (eds.) Short Paper of IWSEC 2010, pp. 60–77. IPSJ (2010)

  12. Biskup, J., Tadros, C.: Inference-proof view update transactions with minimal refusals. In: Garcia-Alfaro, J., Navarro-Arribas, G., Cuppens-Boulahia, N., De Capitani di Vimercati, S. (eds.) DPM 2011/SETOP 2011. LNCS, vol. 7122, pp. 104–121. Springer (2012)

  13. Biskup, J., Tadros, C.: Revising belief without revealing secrets. In: Lukasiewicz, T., Sali, A. (eds.) FoIKS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7153, pp. 51–70. Springer (2012)

  14. Biskup, J., Weibert, T.: Keeping secrets in incomplete databases. Int. J. Inf. Sec. 7(3), 199–217 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Booth, R., Nittka, A.: Reconstructing an agent’s epistemic state from observations about its beliefs and non-beliefs. J. Log. Comput. 18(5), 755–782 (2008)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Brewka, G., Niemelä, I., Truszczyński, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning. In: van Frank Harmelen, V.L., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, pp. 239–284. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Burmeister, B., Felicia Copaciu, M.A., Rimassa, G.: BDI-agents for agile goal-oriented business processes. In: Berger, M., Burg, B., Nishiyama, S. (eds.) AAMAS (Industry Track), pp. 37–44 (2008)

  18. Clarkson, M.R., Myers, A.C., Schneider, F.B.: Quantifying information flow with beliefs. J. Comput. Secur. 17(5), 655–701 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dubois, D.: Three scenarios for the revision of epistemic states. J. Log. Comput. 18(5), 721–738 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T.: Complexity results for default reasoning from conditional knowledge bases. In: Cohn, A.G., Giunchiglia, F., Selman, B. (eds.) KR 2000, pp. 62–73. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Friedman, N., Halpern, J.Y.: Plausibility measures and default reasoning. J. ACM 48(4), 648–685 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Garcia, B.B., Brasil, Jr., S.M.: Towards default reasoning through MAX-SAT. In: Bittencourt, G., Ramalho, G. (eds.) SBIA 2002. LNCS, vol. 2507, pp. 52–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.L.: Analytic tableau calculi for KLM rational logic R. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA. LNCS, vol. 4160, pp. 190–202. Springer (2006)

  24. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Pozzato, G.L.: KLMLean 2.0: a theorem prover for KLM logics of nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Olivetti, N. (ed.) TABLEAUX 2007. LNCS, vol. 4548, pp. 238–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goldszmidt, M., Pearl, J.: On the consistency of defeasible databases. Artif. Intell. 52(2), 121–149 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Halpern, J.Y.: Reasoning About Uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Halpern, J.Y., O’Neill, K.R.: Secrecy in multiagent systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 12(1), 5:1–5:47 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jennings, N.R., Norman, T.J., Faratin, P., O’Brien, P., Odgers, B.: Autonomous agents for business process management. Appl. Appl. Math. 14(2), 145–189 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kern-Isberner, G.: Linking iterated belief change operations to nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Brewka, G., Lang, J. (eds.) KR 2008, pp. 166–176. AAAI Press, Menlo Park California (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artif. Intell. 44(1–2), 167–207 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Lehmann, D.J., Magidor, M.: What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artif. Intell. 55(1), 1–60 (1992)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Moinard, Y.: Plausibility structures for default reasoning. In: de Mántaras, R.L., Saitta, L. (eds.) ECAI 2004, pp. 853–857. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reeves, S., Clarke, M.: Logic for Computer Science. International Computer Science Series. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Spohn, W.: Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states. In: Skyrms, B., Harper, W.L. (eds.) Irvine Conference on Probability and Causation. Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, vol. II, pp. 105–134. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  35. van Benthem, J.: Dynamic logic for belief revision. JANCL 17(2), 129–155 (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Wiese, L.: Keeping secrets in possibilistic knowledge bases with necessity-valued privacy policies. In: Hüllermeier, E., Kruse, R., Hoffmann, F. (eds.) IPMU 2010. LNCS, vol. 6178, pp. 655–664. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wooldridge, M.J.: An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang, D.Y., Zeng, Y., Wang, L., Li, H., Geng, Y.: Modeling and evaluating information leakage caused by inferences in supply chains. Comput. Ind. 62(3), 351–363 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

    Joachim Biskup & Cornelia Tadros

Authors
  1. Joachim Biskup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cornelia Tadros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cornelia Tadros.

Additional information

This work has been supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the Collaborative Research Center SFB 876 “Providing Information by Resource-Constrained Analysis”, project A5.

A preliminary version of this article was presented at FoIKS 2012, Kiel, Germany.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biskup, J., Tadros, C. Preserving confidentiality while reacting on iterated queries and belief revisions . Ann Math Artif Intell 73, 75–123 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-013-9374-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-013-9374-6

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

Search

Navigation