Valuing Others’ Opinions: Preference, Belief and Reliability Dynamics

Sujata Ghosh, Katsuhiko Sano

Abstract

Deliberation often leads to changes in preferences and beliefs of an agent, influenced by the opinions of others, depending on how reliable these agents are according to the agent under consideration. Sometimes, it also leads to changes in the opposite direction, that is, reliability over agents gets updated depending on their preferences and/or beliefs. There are various formal studies of preference and belief change based on reliability and/or trust, but not the other way around $-$ this work contributes to the formal study of the latter aspect, that is, on reliability change based on agent preferences. In process, some policies of preference change based on agent reliabilities are also discussed. A two-dimensional hybrid language is proposed to describe such processes, and axiomatisations and decidability are discussed.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K., and Suzumura, K., editors (2002). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. Elsevier. Two volumes.
  2. Boutilier, C. (1994). Conditional logics of normality: A modal approach. Artificial Intelligence , 68(1):87-154.
  3. Burgess, J. P. (1984). Basic tense logic. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume II, chapter 2, pages 89-133. Reidel.
  4. Demolombe, R. (2001). To trust information sources: A proposal for a modal logic framework. In Castelfranchi, C. and Tan, Y.-H., editors, Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
  5. Demolombe, R. (2004). Reasoning about trust: A formal logical framework. In Jensen, C. D., Poslad, S.,
  6. 5The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper. The work of the second author was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) Grant Number 15K21025 and JSPS Core-to-Core Program (A.
  7. and Dimitrakos, T., editors, iTrust, volume 2995 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 291-303.
  8. Endriss, U. (2011). Logic and social choice theory. In Gupta, A. and van Benthem, J., editors, Logic and Philosophy Today, volume 2, pages 333-377. College Publications.
  9. Falcone, R., Barber, K. S., Sabater-Mir, J., and Singh, M. P., editors (2008). Trust in Agent Societies, 11th International Workshop, TRUST 2008, Estoril, Portugal, May 12-13, 2008. Revised Selected and Invited Papers, volume 5396 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
  10. Falcone, R. and Castelfranchi, C. (2001). Social trust: A cognitive approach. In Castelfranchi, C. and Tan, Y.- H., editors, Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, pages 55-90. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
  11. Gargov, G., Passy, S., and Tinchev, T. (1987). Modal environment for boolean speculations, preliminary report. In Skordev, D., editor, Mathematical Logic and Its Applications, pages 253-263. Plenum Press.
  12. Ghosh, S. and Velázquez-Quesada, F. R. (2015a). Agreeing to agree: Reaching unanimity via preference dynamics based on reliable agents. In Bordini, R., Elkind, E., Weiss, G., and Yolum, P., editors, AAMAS 2015, pages 1491-1499.
  13. Ghosh, S. and Velázquez-Quesada, F. R. (2015b). A note on reliability-based preference dynamics. In van der Hoek, W., Holliday, W. H., and fan Wang, W., editors, LORI 2015, pages 129 -142.
  14. Goldblatt, R. (1992). Logics of Time and Computation. Number 7 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA, 2nd edition.
  15. Goldman, A. I. (2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1):85-110.
  16. Grüne-Yanoff, T. and Hansson, S. O., editors (2009). Preference Change, volume 42 of Theory and Decision Library. Springer.
  17. Harel, D., Kozen, D., and Tiuryn, J. (2000). Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  18. Herzig, A., Lorini, E., Hübner, J. F., and Vercouter, L. (2010). A logic of trust and reputation. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 18(1):214-244.
  19. Holliday, W. H. (2010). Trust and the dynamics of testimony. In Kurzen, L., Grossi, D., and VelázquezQuesada, F. R., editors, Logic and Interactive RAtionality. Seminar's yearbook 2009, pages 118-142. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  20. Liau, C.-J. (2003). Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems - a modal logic formulation. Artificial Intelligence , 149(1):31-60.
  21. Lorini, E., Jiang, G., and Perrussel, L. (2014). Trust-based belief change. In Schaub, T., editor, ECAI 2014 - 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 18- 22 August 2014, Prague, Czech Republic - Including Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems (PAIS 2014), volume 263 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 549-554. IOS Press.
  22. Marx, M. and Mikulás, S. (2001). Products, or how to create modal logics of high complexity. Logic Journal of IGPL, 9(1):71-82.
  23. Rodenhäuser, B. (2014). A Matter of Trust: Dynamic Attitudes in Epistemic Logic. PhD thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2014-04.
  24. Sano, K. (2010). Axiomatizing hybrid products: How can we reason many-dimensionally in hybrid logic? Journal of Applied Logic, 8(4):459-474.
  25. Seligman, J., Liu, F., and Girard, P. (2013). Knowledge, friendship and social announcement. In van Benthem, J. and Liu, F., editors, Logic Across the University: Foundations and Applications, volume 47 of Studies in Logic, pages 445-469. College Publications.
  26. van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17(2):129- 155.
  27. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., and Kooi, B. (2006). Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation, 204(11):1620-1662.
  28. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., and Kooi, B. (2008). Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Number 337 in Synthese Library. Springer.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Ghosh S. and Sano K. (2017). Valuing Others’ Opinions: Preference, Belief and Reliability Dynamics . In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-758-220-2, pages 615-623. DOI: 10.5220/0006204806150623


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart17,
author={Sujata Ghosh and Katsuhiko Sano},
title={Valuing Others’ Opinions: Preference, Belief and Reliability Dynamics},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,},
year={2017},
pages={615-623},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006204806150623},
isbn={978-989-758-220-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,
TI - Valuing Others’ Opinions: Preference, Belief and Reliability Dynamics
SN - 978-989-758-220-2
AU - Ghosh S.
AU - Sano K.
PY - 2017
SP - 615
EP - 623
DO - 10.5220/0006204806150623