Assessing Trust for Determining the Reliability of Information

  • Davide Ceolin
  • Willem Robert van Hage
  • Guus Schreiber
  • Wan Fokkink
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores methods for determining the reliability of Automated Identification System (AIS) messages. The primary use of AIS messages in the naval domain is to avoid collisions, therefore they contain kinematic information about ships. Moreover, AIS messages contain information like the ship name and its identifiers, so AIS messages can be used to identify ships. However, since the information contained in these messages is not necessarily correct (because, for instance, a malicious sender might want to declare a different identity than its own), in order to properly use them, we should assess their trust level. In general, trust is an important concept that helps to take decisions when the available information is limited or contradicting. In the case of AIS messages, this might occur when only few messages about a given ship are available or when messages conflict either against themselves or against other sources like Web sites reporting ship information. We describe ongoing work about the quantification of trust assessments in AIS messages, by means of statistical and logical analysis and by enriching AIS messages with information obtained from the Web.

Keywords

Radar Stratification Clarification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been carried out as a part of the Poseidon project at Thales under the responsibility of the Embedded Systems Institute (ESI). This project is partially supported by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs under the BSIK program.

We would like to thank the editors for their effort spent in reviewing this chapter.

References

  1. 1.
    Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (2000) Trust is much more than subjective probability: mental components and sources of trust. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HICSS2000, vol 6, pp 154–165Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ceolin D, Groth P, van Hage WR (2010) Calculating the trust of event descriptions using provenance. In: Sahoo SS, Zhao J, Missier P, Gomez-Perez JM (eds) Second international workshop on the role of semantic web in provenance management (SWPM 2010). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-670/completeSWPM10Proceedings.pdf
  3. 3.
    Ceolin D, van Hage WR, Fokkink W (2010) A trust model to estimate the quality of annotations using the web. In: Web science conference (WebSci10), 26–27 Apr 2010. http://journal.webscience.org/315
  4. 4.
    Ceolin D, van Hage WR, Fokkink W, Schreiber G (2011) Estimating uncertainty of categorical web data. In: Bobillo F et al (eds) 7th international workshop on uncertainty reasoning for the semantic web (URSW 2011), pp 15–26. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-778/proceedings.pdf
  5. 5.
    Dempster A (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat 2(38):325–339MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferguson TS (1973) A bayesian analysis of some nonparametric problems. Ann Stat 1(2):209–230MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fink D (1995) A compendium of conjugate priors. Technical report, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jøsang A (2007) Probabilistic logic under uncertainty. In: Gudmundsson J, Jay CB (eds), Theory of computing 2007. Proceedings of the thirteenth computing: the Australasian theory symposium (CATS2007), Ballarat, Victoria, Australia, proceedings, ser. CRPIT, Jan 30 – Feb 2, 2007, vol 65, pp 101–110. Australian Computer Society, DarlinghurstGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jøsang A, McAnally D (2005) Multiplication and comultiplication of beliefs. Int J Approx Reason 38(1):19–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moreau L, Clifford B, Freire J, Futrelle J, Groth P, Gil Y, Kwasnikowska N, Miles S, Missier P, Myers J (2010) The open provenance model core specification (v1.1). Futur Gener Comput Syst (online). Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2010.07.005
  11. 11.
    Pitman J (1995) Exchangeable and partially exchangeable random partitions. Probab Theory Relat Fields 102(2):145–158MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raiffa H, Schlaifer R (1968) Applied statistical decision theory. MIT, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Ceolin
    • 1
  • Willem Robert van Hage
    • 1
  • Guus Schreiber
    • 1
  • Wan Fokkink
    • 2
  1. 1.Web & Media GroupVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Theoretical Computer Science GroupVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations