Reasoning about Cognitive Trust in Stochastic Multiagent Systems
Open accessAbstract
We consider the setting of stochastic multiagent systems modelled as stochastic multiplayer games and formulate an automated verification framework for quantifying and reasoning about agents’ trust. To capture human trust, we work with a cognitive notion of trust defined as a subjective evaluation that agent A makes about agent B’s ability to complete a task, which in turn may lead to a decision by A to rely on B. We propose a probabilistic rational temporal logic PRTL*, which extends the probabilistic computation tree logic PCTL* with reasoning about mental attitudes (beliefs, goals, and intentions) and includes novel operators that can express concepts of social trust such as competence, disposition, and dependence. The logic can express, for example, that “agent A will eventually trust agent B with probability at least p that B will behave in a way that ensures the successful completion of a given task.” We study the complexity of the automated verification problem and, while the general problem is undecidable, we identify restrictions on the logic and the system that result in decidable, or even tractable, subproblems.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The probabilistic rational temporal logic from [43,44] is generally undecidable, but decidable fragments have been identified.
“The resulting logic is, in general, undecidable but decidable fragments are identified.”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [43]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 18
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- [1]1. Akash, K., Hu, W., Jain, N., Reid, T.: A classification model for sensing human trust in machines using EEG and GSR. CoRR abs/1803.09861 (2018), http: //arxiv.org/abs/1803.09861 · arXiv
- [2]2. Asch, S.: Forming impression of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 40 (3), 258-290 (1946)
- [3]3. Aziz, A., Singhal, V., Balarin, F., Brayton, R., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: It usually works: The temporal logic of stochastic systems. In: Computer Aided Verification. pp. 155-165. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg (1995)
- [4]4. Baier, C., Katoen, J.P., Larsen, K.G.: Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press (2008)
- [6]6. Bratman, M.: Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts (1987)
- [9]9. Chandra, A.K., Kozen, D.C., Stockmeyer, L.J.: Alternation. Journal of the ACM 28 (1), 114-133 (1980)
- [13]13. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. The MIT Press (1999)
- [19]19. Gambetta, D. (ed.): Trust. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1990)
- [20]20. Goldsmith, J., Mundhenk, M.: Complexity issues in markov decision processes. In: the Thirteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (1998)
- [26]26. Herzig, A., Lorini, E., Moisan, F.: A simple logic of trust based on propositional assignments. The Goals of Cognition. Essays in Honor of Cristiano Castelfranchi pp. 407-419 (2013)
- [29]29. Huang, X., Kwiatkowska, M.: Reasoning about cognitive trust in stochastic multiagent systems. In: Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI17) (2017)
- [34]34. Kuipers, B.: What is trust and how can my robot get some? In: a Talk at Social Trust in Autonomous Robots, a workshop in Robotics: Science and Systems 2016 (2016), http://qav.comlab.ox.ac.uk/trust\_in\_autonomy/img/ KuipersTrustWorkshop16.pdf
- [37]37. Lahijanian, M., Kwiatkowska, M.: Social trust: a major challenge for the future of autonomous systems. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Cross-Disciplinary Challenges for Autonomous Systems. AAAI Fall Symposium, AAAI, AAAI Press (2016)
- [43]43. Paz, A.: Introduction to probabilistic automata (Computer science and applied mathematics). Academic Press (1971)
- Authors
- Huang, X., Kwiatkowska, M., & Olejnik, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- ORCID
- Kwiatkowska, Marta
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
- Published
- 2019-07-16
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1-64
- ISSN
- 1529-3785 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-945X
- OpenAlex
- W2960127036
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M019918/1)
- European Research Council (AdG-246967 VERIWARE)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Keywords
- cognitive trust, PCTL, mental attitude, automated verification, trust reasoning, competence, dependency, decidability, complexity analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review