Cited by 18Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFormal Methods in VerificationMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation

Reasoning about Cognitive Trust in Stochastic Multiagent Systems

Open access
Huang, Xiaowei, Kwiatkowska, Marta, Olejnik, Maciej·2019·ACM Transactions on Computational Logic

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3329123

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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.”

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]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]2. Asch, S.: Forming impression of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 40 (3), 258-290 (1946)
  3. [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]4. Baier, C., Katoen, J.P., Larsen, K.G.: Principles of Model Checking. The MIT Press (2008)
  5. [6]6. Bratman, M.: Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts (1987)
  6. [9]9. Chandra, A.K., Kozen, D.C., Stockmeyer, L.J.: Alternation. Journal of the ACM 28 (1), 114-133 (1980)
  7. [13]13. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. The MIT Press (1999)
  8. [19]19. Gambetta, D. (ed.): Trust. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1990)
  9. [20]20. Goldsmith, J., Mundhenk, M.: Complexity issues in markov decision processes. In: the Thirteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (1998)
  10. [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)
  11. [29]29. Huang, X., Kwiatkowska, M.: Reasoning about cognitive trust in stochastic multiagent systems. In: Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI17) (2017)
  12. [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
  13. [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)
  14. [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)
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
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