Liar liar, pants on fire; or how to use subjective logic and argumentation to evaluate information from untrustworthy sources

Abstract

This paper presents a non-prioritized belief change operator, designed specifically for incorporating new information from many heterogeneous sources in an uncertain environment. We take into account that sources may be untrustworthy and provide a principled method for dealing with the reception of contradictory information. We specify a novel Data-Oriented Belief Revision Operator, that uses a trust model, subjective logic, and a preference-based argumentation framework to evaluate novel information and change the agent's belief set accordingly. We apply this belief change operator in a collaborative traffic scenario, where we show that (1) some form of trust-based non-prioritized belief change operator is necessary, and (2) in a direct comparison between our operator and a previous proposition, our operator performs at least as well in all scenarios, and significantly better in some.

An informant-based approach to argument strength in Defeasible Logic Programming

“…Another work that relates to our proposal is [32], where the authors use an argumentation mechanism based on trust as a layer of a belief revision process carried out by agents dealing with (potentially conflicting) opinions about their pairs. In their argumentation approach, trust is used for building a preference ordering amongst arguments, thus codifying their strength.…”

Arguing about informant credibility in open multi-agent systems

“…Note that there are two non basic reliability-attacks: ω 5 and ω 6 , and two non basic indirectreliability-attacks: η 5 and η 6 . In particular, observe that η 5 = (A 25 , ω 6 ) occurs because there is ω 5 such that og(ω 5 ) = A 25 , and it also holds that tg(ω 5 ) = η 1 , og(η 1 ) = A 22 and tg(ω 6 ) = η 2 , tg(η 1 ) = ω 1 , og(ω 1 ) = A 22 . An analogous situation occurs for η 6 .…”

“…Nevertheless, it is worth to mention that, in our model, we do not explicitly deal with the problem of assessing the trustworthiness of a piece of information considering the amount of sources needed to infer it. There are more comprehensive approaches to deal with this problem like [11,22]. In [22], an argumentation mechanism based on trust is used as a layer of a belief revision process for agents dealing with (potentially conflicting) opinions about their pairs.…”

“…There are more comprehensive approaches to deal with this problem like [11,22]. In [22], an argumentation mechanism based on trust is used as a layer of a belief revision process for agents dealing with (potentially conflicting) opinions about their pairs. In that argumentation approach, trust is used to build a preference ordering amongst arguments.…”

“…This assessment considers the number of agents and information pieces which where needed for building the argument. The work of [11] is similar to [22] in the sense that they use the argumentation mechanism as part of a belief revision process to deal with potentially conflicting information obtained from different sources. Agents transmit complete arguments and, to calculate trustworthiness, they use the most trustworthy source that communicated an argument in an iterative fuzzy labeling process.…”