Inferring Trust

  • Mehdi Dastani
  • Andreas Herzig
  • Joris Hulstijn
  • Leendert van der Torre
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3487)


In this paper we discuss Liau’s logic of Belief, Inform and Trust (BIT), which captures the use of trust to infer beliefs from acquired information. However, the logic does not capture the derivation of trust from other notions. We therefore suggest the following two extensions. First, like Liau we observe that trust in information from an agent depends on the topic of the information. We extend BIT with a formalization of topics which are used to infer trust in a proposition from trust in another proposition, if both propositions have the same topics. Second, for many applications, communication primitives other than inform are required. We extend BIT with questions, and discuss the relationship with belief, inform and trust. An answer to a question can lead to trust, when the answer conforms to the beliefs of the agent.


Exchange Rate Interest Rate Modal Logic Multiagent System Electronic Commerce 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Tan, Y.H., Thoen, W.: Formal aspects of a generic model of trust for electronic commerce. In: 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2000), p. 6006 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liau, C.J.: Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems – a modal formulation. Artificial Intelligence 149, 31–60 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gasquet, O., Herzig, A.: From classical to normal modal logics. In: Wansing, H. (ed.) Proof Theory of Modal Logics. Applied Logic Series, vol. 2, pp. 293–311. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kracht, M., Wolter, F.: Normal monomodal logics can simulate all others. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64, 99–138 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goffman, E.: Strategic interaction. University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania (1969)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demolombe, R.: To trust information sources: a proposal for a modal logical framework. In: Castelfranchi, C., Tan, Y.H. (eds.) Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, pp. 111–124. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Demolombe, R., Jones, A.: On sentences of the kind “sentence ‘p’ is about topic t’. In: Logic, language and reasoning: Essays in Honour of Dov Gabbay, pp. 115–133. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herzig, A., Longin, D.: Belief dynamics in cooperative dialogues. Journal of Semantics 17, 91–118 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Janin, D., Walukiewicz, I.: Automata for the modal mu-calculus and related results. In: Hájek, P., Wiedermann, J. (eds.) MFCS 1995. LNCS, vol. 969, pp. 552–562. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Questions. In: Van Benthem, J., Ter Meulen, A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic and Language, North-Holland, pp. 1055–1124. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Kuppevelt, J.: Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31, 109–149 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan, Y.H., Thoen, W.: An outline of a trust model for electronic commerce. Applied Artificial Intelligence 14, 849–862 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mayer, R., Davis, J., Schoorman, F.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20, 709–734 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gambetta, D.: Can we trust trust? In: Trust, pp. 213–237. Basil Blackwell, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grosz, B., Sidner, C.: Attentions, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204 (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huibers, T.: An Axiomatic Theory for Information Retrieval. PhD thesis, Utrecht University (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burrows, M., Abadi, M., Needham, R.: A logic of authentication. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 8, 18–36 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Tuecke, S.: The anatomy of the Grid: Enabling scalable virtual organizations. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 15, 200–222 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carbone, M., Nielsen, M., Sassone, V.: A formal model for trust in dynamic networks. In: International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2003), pp. 54–63. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones, A., Firozabadi, B.S.: On the characterisation of a trusting agent - aspects of a formal approach. In: Castelfranchi, C., Tan, Y. (eds.) Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, pp. 157–168. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Lacy, J.: Decentralized trust management. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 164–173. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dellarocas, C.: The digitization of word-of-mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science 49, 1407–1424 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehdi Dastani
    • 1
  • Andreas Herzig
    • 2
  • Joris Hulstijn
    • 3
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 4
  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2.IRITToulouseFrance
  3. 3.Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations