skip to main content
research-article

The Relevance of Categories for Trusting Information Sources

Published:07 December 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this article, we are interested in the fact that relevance and trustworthiness of information acquired by an agent X from a source F strictly depends and derives from X's trust in F with respect to the kind of information. In particular, we are interested in analyzing the relevance of F's category as indicator for its trustworthiness with respect to the specific informative goals of X. In this article, we analyze an interactive cognitive model for searching information in a world in which each agent can be considered as belonging to a specific agent's category. We also consider variability within the canonical categorical behavior and consequent influence on the trustworthiness of provided information. The introduced interactive cognitive model also allows evaluation of the trustworthiness of a source both on the basis of its category and on past direct experience with it, thus selecting the more adequate source with respect to the informative goals to achieve. We present a computational approach based on fuzzy sets and some selected simulation scenarios together with the discussion of their more interesting results.

References

  1. C. Castelfranchi, R. Falcone, and Pezzulo. 2003. Trust in information sources as a source for trust: A fuzzy approach. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’03). ACM, New York, NY, 89--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. C. Castelfranchi and R. Falcone. 2010. Trust Theory: A Socio-cognitive and Computational Model. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. Falcone, M. Piunti, M. Venanzi, and C. Castelfranchi. 2013. From Manifesta to Krypta: The relevance of categories for trusting others. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 4, 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. P. Yolum and M. P. Singh. 2003. Emergent properties of referral systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS’03). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. R. Conte and M. Paolucci. 2002. Reputation in Artificial Societies: Social Beliefs for Social Order. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Burnett, T. Norman, and K. Sycara. 2010. Bootstrapping trust evaluations through stereotypes. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’10). 241--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. E. Bratman. 1987. Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. R. Hermoso, H. Billhardt, and S. Ossowski. 2013. Trust-based role coordination in task-oriented multiagent systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 52, 78--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. R. Falcone and C. Castelfranchi. 2012. Trust and transitivity: How trust-transfer works. In 10th International Conference on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, University of Salamanca (Spain).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Joana Urbano, Ana Paula Rocha, and Eugnio Oliveira. 2009. Computing Confidence Values: Does Trust Dynamics Matter? In L. Sabra Lopes et al. (Eds.): EPIA 2009, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence vol. 5816. Springer, 520--531. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. XLVII, 263--291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. E. T. Higgins. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist 52, 1280--1300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. R. Falcone and C. Castelfranchi. 2004. Trust dynamics: How trust is influenced by direct experiences and by trust itself. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS’04), ACM, New York, NY, 740--747. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Sabater-Mir and C. Sierra. 2001. Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Deception and Fraud in Agent Societies, Montreal, Canada, 61--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Jiang, J. Zhang, and Y. S. Ong. 2013. An evolutionary model for constructing robust trust networks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. U. Wilensky. 1999. NetLogo. Retrieved October 27, 2015 from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Relevance of Categories for Trusting Information Sources

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
      ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 15, Issue 4
      Special Issue on Trust in Social Networks and Systems
      December 2015
      88 pages
      ISSN:1533-5399
      EISSN:1557-6051
      DOI:10.1145/2851090
      • Editor:
      • Munindar P. Singh
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 December 2015
      • Accepted: 1 July 2015
      • Revised: 1 June 2015
      • Received: 1 August 2014
      Published in toit Volume 15, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!