A Modal Framework for Relating Belief and Signed Information

  • Emiliano Lorini
  • Laurent Perrussel
  • Jean-Marc Thévenin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6814)


The aim of this paper is to propose a modal framework for reasoning about signed information. This modal framework allows agents to keep track of information source as long as they receive information in a multi-agent system. Agents gain that they can elaborate and justify their own current belief state by considering a reliability relation over the sources of information. The belief elaboration process is considered under two perspectives: (i) from a static point of view an agent aggregates received signed information according to its preferred sources in order to build its belief and (ii) from a dynamic point of view as an agent receives information it adapts its belief state about signed information. Splitting the notions of beliefs and signed statement is useful for handling the underlying trust issue: an agent believes some statement because it may justify the statement’s origin and its reliability.


Belief Revision Belief State Variable Assignment Axiom Schema Reliability Relation 
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.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aucher, G.: A combined system for update logic and belief revision. In: Barley, M.W., Kasabov, N. (eds.) PRIMA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3371, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benferhat, S., Garcia, L.: Handling locally stratified inconsistent knowledge bases. Studia Logica 70, 77–104 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booth, R., Meyer, T.: How to revise a total preorder. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40(2), 193–238 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cholvy, L.: Automated reasoning with merged contradictory information whose reliability depends on topics. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS, vol. 946, pp. 125–132. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cholvy, L.: A modal logic for reasoning with contradictory beliefs which takes into account the number and the reliability of the sources. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 390–401. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Rational Interaction as the Basis for Communication. In: Cohen, P., Morgan, J., Pollack, M. (eds.) Intentions in Communication, pp. 221–256. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Communicative actions for artificial agents. In: Lesser, V., Gasser, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1995), pp. 65–72. The MIT Press, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fariñas del Cerro, L., Herzig, A., Longin, D., Rifi, O.: Belief reconstruction in cooperative dialogues. In: Giunchiglia, F. (ed.) AIMSA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1480, pp. 254–266. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dragoni, A., Giorgini, P.: Revising beliefs received from multiple sources. In: Frontiers of Belief Revision, Applied Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, Y.M.J.: Reasoning About Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Finin, T., Labrou, Y., Mayfield, J.: KQML as an agent communication language. In: Bradshaw, J. (ed.) Software Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerbrandy, J., Groeneveld, W.: Reasoning about information change. J. of Logic, Language and Information 6(2) (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herzig, A., Longin, D.: Belief dynamics in cooperative dialogues. J. of Semantics 17(2) (2000) (vol. published in 2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52(3), 263–294 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Konieczny, S., Pérez, R.: Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links with social choice theory. European Journal of Operational Research 160(3), 785–802 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liau, C.: Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems–a modal logic formulation. Artificial Intelligence 149(1), 31–60 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liberatore, P., Schaerf, M.: Arbitration (or how to merge knowledge bases). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 10(1), 76–90 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lorini, E., Demolombe, R.: From Binary Trust to Graded Trust in Information Sources: A Logical Perspective. In: Falcone, R., Barber, S.K., Sabater-Mir, J., Singh, M.P. (eds.) Trust 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5396, pp. 205–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nickles, M., Fischer, F., Weiss, G.: Communication attitudes: A formal approach to ostensible intentions, and individual and group opinions. In: Proc. of LCMAS 2005. Electronic Notes in Computer Science, vol. 157(4), pp. 95–115. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perrussel, L., Thévenin, J.-M. (Dis)Belief Change Based on Messages Processing. In: Dix, J., Leite, J. (eds.) CLIMA IV. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3259, pp. 201–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perrussel, L., Thévenin, J.: A logical approach for describing (dis)belief change and message processing. In: Proc. of AAMAS 2004, pp. 614–621. IEEE C.S, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: Modeling rational agents within a bdi-architecture. In: Proc. of KR 1991, pp. 473–484 (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Segerberg, K.: Belief revision from the point of view of doxastic logic. Logic Journal of IGPL 3(4), 535–553 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a logic of rational agency. Journal of the IGPL 11(2), 133–157 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Ditmarsch, H.: Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision. Synthese 147(2), 229–275 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library, vol. 337. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emiliano Lorini
    • 1
  • Laurent Perrussel
    • 2
  • Jean-Marc Thévenin
    • 2
  1. 1.IRITToulouseFrance
  2. 2.IRIT - Université de ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations