Belief Integration and Source Reliability Assessment

Merging beliefs requires the plausibility of the sources of the information to be merged. They are typically assumed equally reliable when nothing suggests otherwise. A recent line of research has spun from the idea of deriving this information from the revision process itself. In particular, the history of previous revisions and previous merging examples provide information for performing subsequent merging operations. Yet, no examples or previous revisions may be available. In spite of the apparent lack of information, something can still be inferred by a try-and-check approach: a relative reliability ordering is assumed, the sources are integrated according to it and the result is compared with the original information. The final check may contradict the original ordering, like when the result of merging implies the negation of a formula coming from a source initially assumed reliable, or it implies a formula coming from a source assumed unreliable. In such cases, the reliability ordering assumed in the first place can be excluded from consideration. Such a scenario is proved real under the classifications of source reliability and definitions of belief integration considered in this article: sources divided in two, three or multiple reliability classes; integration is mostly by maximal consistent subsets but also weighted distance is considered. Other results mainly concern the integration by maximal consistent subsets and partitions of two and three reliability classes

Trust and Risk Relationship Analysis on a Workflow Basis: A Use Case

Trust and risk are often seen in proportion to each other; as such, high trust may induce low risk and vice versa. However, recent research argues that trust and risk relationship is implicit rather than proportional. Considering that trust and risk are implicit, this paper proposes for the first time a novel approach to view trust and risk on a basis of a W3C PROV provenance data model applied in a healthcare domain. We argue that high trust in healthcare domain can be placed in data despite of its high risk, and low trust data can have low risk depending on data quality attributes and its provenance. This is demonstrated by our trust and risk models applied to the BII case study data. The proposed theoretical approach first calculates risk values at each workflow step considering PROV concepts and second, aggregates the final risk score for the whole provenance chain. Different from risk model, trust of a workflow is derived by applying DS/AHP method. The results prove our assumption that trust and risk relationship is implicit

Consistency-Based Reliability Assessment

International audienceThis paper addresses the question of assessing the relative reliability of unknown information sources. We propose to consider a phase during which the consistency of information they report is analysed, whether it is the consistency of each single report, or the consistency of a report w.r.t. some trusted knowledge or the consistency of different reports together. We adopt an axiomatic approach by first giving postulates which characterize how the resulting reliability preorder should be; then we define a family of operators for building this preorder and demonstrate that it satisfies the proposed postulates

Data reliability assessment in a data warehouse opened on the Web

International audienceThis paper presents an ontology-driven workflow that feeds and queries a data warehouse opened on the Web. Data are extracted from data tables in Web documents. As web documents are very heterogeneous in nature, a key issue in this workflow is the ability to assess the reliability of retrieved data. We first recall the main steps of our method to annotate and query Web data tables driven by a domain ontology. Then we propose an original method to assess Web data table reliability from a set of criteria by the means of evidence theory. Finally, we show how we extend the workflow to integrate the reliability assessment step

A Cognitive-based scheme for user reliability and expertise assessment in Q&A social networks

Q&A social media has gained a great deal of attention during recent years. People rely on these sites to obtain information due to the number of advantages they offer as compared to conventional sources of knowledge (e.g., asynchronous and convenient access). However, for the same question one may find highly contradictory answers, causing ambiguity with respect to the correct information. This can be attributed to the presence of unreliable and/or non-expert users. In this work, we propose a novel approach for estimating the reliability and expertise of a user based on human cognitive traits. Every user can individually estimate these values based on local pairwise interactions. We examine the convergence performance of our algorithm and we find that it can accurately assess the reliability and the expertise of a user and can successfully react to the latter's behavior change. © 2011 IEEE

Hybridization of Bayesian networks and belief functions to assess risk. Application to aircraft deconstruction

This paper aims to present a study on knowledge management for the disassembly of end-of-life aircraft. We propose a model using Bayesian networks to assess risk and present three approaches to integrate the belief functions standing for the representation of fuzzy and uncertain knowledge

Towards Consistency-Based Reliability Assessment

International audienceMOTIVATION : Merging information provided by several sources is an important issue and merging techniques have been extensively studied. When the reliability of the sources is not known, one can apply merging techniques such as majority or arbitration merging or distancebasedmerging for solving conflicts between information. At the opposite, if the reliability of the sources is known, either represented in a quantitative or in a qualitative way, then it can be used to manage contradictions: information provided by a source is generally weakened or ignored if it contradicts information provided by a more reliable source [1, 4, 6]. Assessing the reliability of information sources is thus crucial. The present paper addresses this key question. We adopt a qualitative point of view for reliability representation by assuming that the relative reliability of information sources is represented by a total preorder. This works considers that we have no information about the sources and in particular, we do not know if they are correct (i.e they provide true information) or not. We focus on a preliminary stage of observation and assessment of sources. We claim that during that stage the key issue is a consistency analysis of information provided by sources, whether it is the consistency of single reports or consistency w.r.t trusted knowledge or the consistency of different reports together. We adopt an axiomatic approach: first we give some postulates which characterize what this reliability preorder should be, then we define a generic operator for building this preorder in agreement with the postulates

Collaborative assessment of information provider's reliability and expertise using subjective logic

Q&A social media have gained a lot of attention during the recent years. People rely on these sites to obtain information due to a number of advantages they offer as compared to conventional sources of knowledge (e.g., asynchronous and convenient access). However, for the same question one may find highly contradicting answers, causing an ambiguity with respect to the correct information. This can be attributed to the presence of unreliable and/or non-expert users. These two attributes (reliability and expertise) significantly affect the quality of the answer/information provided. We present a novel approach for estimating these user's characteristics relying on human cognitive traits. In brief, we propose each user to monitor the activity of her peers (on the basis of responses to questions asked by her) and observe their compliance with predefined cognitive models. These observations lead to local assessments that can be further fused to obtain a reliability and expertise consensus for every other user in the social network (SN). For the aggregation part we use subjective logic. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study of this kind in the context of Q&A SN. Our proposed approach is highly distributed; each user can individually estimate the expertise and the reliability of her peers using her direct interactions with them and our framework. The online SN (OSN), which can be considered as a distributed database, performs continuous data aggregation for users expertise and reliability assessment in order to reach a consensus. We emulate a Q&A SN to examine various performance aspects of our algorithm (e.g., convergence time, responsiveness etc.). Our evaluations indicate that it can accurately assess the reliability and the expertise of a user with a small number of samples and can successfully react to the latter's behavior change, provided that the cognitive traits hold in practice. © 2011 ICST