Argument schemes for reasoning about trust

Parsons, Simon; Atkinson, Katie; Li, Zimi; McBurney, Peter; Sklar, Elizabeth; Singh, Munindar P.; Haigh, Karen Zita; Levitt, Karl N.; Rowe, Jeff

doi:10.1080/19462166.2014.913075

Cited by 35 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The schemes for deriving trust are exemplified by the scheme for direct experience: if A has previous successful interactions with B, then that is the basis of an argument that A should trust B in future integrations. The schemes for propagating trust are exemplified by transitivity: if A trusts B and B trusts C, then that forms the basis for an argument that A should trust C. Of course, both these schemes can be flawed, and [35] captures these flaws as critical questions. These identify situations in which the argument generated by the scheme is not sound.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Firewall configuration: An application of multiagent metalevel argumentation

Applebaum

Levitt

et al. 2016

AAC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Firewalls are an important tool in the assurance of network security. Packet filtering firewalls are configured by providing a set of rules that identify how to handle individual data packets that arrive at the firewall. In large firewall configurations, conflicts may arise between these rules. Argumentation provides a way of handling conflicts such that their origin is illuminated, and hence can help a system administrator understand the effects of a given configuration. To show how argumentation might help in this domain we examine the use of a system of metalevel argumentation for firewall configuration, showing how it makes conflicts and their origins clear, and showing how different instantiations of a metalevel argumentation system provide alternative ways to resolve conflicts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [35], we identified a number of argumentation schemes for reasoning about trust. In particular, we identified two broad classes of scheme: schemes for deriving trust and schemes for propagating trust.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firewall configuration: An application of multiagent metalevel argumentation

Applebaum

Levitt

et al. 2016

AAC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Parsons et al (2012) other properties, called argument schemes, are discussed like trust in agent's reputation or trust in agent's character. For the purpose of the paper, we only focus on the six above properties and propose a formal framework for reasoning with and about them.…”

Section: Binary Trust In Information Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recently, in Parsons et al (2012) the authors focused on identifying 10 sources of trust and presented them in terms of argument schemes, i.e. syllogisms justifying trustworthiness in an agent.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

An argumentation-based approach for reasoning about trust in information sources

Amgoud¹,

Demolombe²

2014

Argument & Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During a dialogue, agents exchange information with each other and need thus to deal with incoming information. For that purpose, they should be able to reason effectively about trustworthiness of information sources. This paper proposes an argument-based system that allows an agent to reason about its own beliefs and information received from other sources. An agent's beliefs are of two kinds: beliefs about the environment (like the window is closed) and beliefs about trusting sources (like agent i trusts agent j). Six basic forms of trust are discussed in the paper including the most common one on sincerity. Starting with a base which contains such information, the system builds two types of arguments: arguments in favour of trusting a given source of information and arguments in favour of believing statements which may be received from other agents. We discuss how the different arguments interact and how an agent may decide to trust another source and thus to accept information coming from that source. The system is then extended in order to deal with graded trust (like agent i trusts to some extent agent j).

show abstract

“…The expertise question asks about the expert's depth of knowledge in the field. The trustworthiness question asks about ethical matters, such as whether the expert might be biased, or may have lied in the past [15]. The type of dialogue that is involved when a layperson converses with an expert to solicit the opinion of the expert is called examination dialogue [26].…”

Section: Conclusion: a May Plausibly Be Taken To Be True (False)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Profiles of Dialogue for Repairing Faults in Arguments from Expert Opinion

Koszowy

Walton

2016

LLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Using the profiles of dialogue method we identify a species of ad verecundiam fallacy that works by forestalling of questioning in arguments from expert opinion. A profile of dialogue is a graph structure used to model a sequence of speech acts surrounding both the putting forward of an argument and the response to it at the next moves in a dialogue. The method is applied to a case of cross-examining a software engineer in a legal deposition in a case of intellectual property litigation.

show abstract

Argument schemes for reasoning about trust

Cited by 35 publications

References 38 publications

Firewall configuration: An application of multiagent metalevel argumentation

Firewall configuration: An application of multiagent metalevel argumentation

An argumentation-based approach for reasoning about trust in information sources

Profiles of Dialogue for Repairing Faults in Arguments from Expert Opinion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About