Preserving confidentiality while reacting on iterated queries and belief revisions

In multiagent systems, agents interact and in particular exchange information to achieve a joint goal, e.g., arrange a meeting, negotiate a sales contract etc. An agent, as a rational reasoner, is able to incorporate new information into her belief about her environment (belief revision) or to share her belief with other agents (query answering). Our agent model is based on a common line of research where belief revision is seen as the process of nonmonotonic reasoning from the available information. Yet, such an agent might be interested to hide confidential parts of her belief from another requesting agent and, thus, must control the respective reaction to a revision or query request. As our first contribution, we define the confidentiality aims of the reacting agent and postulate the requesting agent’s capabilities in attacking these interests. In particular, we study an operator by means of which the requesting agent attempts to skeptically entail confidential beliefs of the reacting agent from observed reactions. This skeptical entailment operator is based on a class of nonmonotonic consequence relations such that the reacting agent’s reasoning is implemented as an instance of this class. As our second contribution, we give an algorithmic solution for the reacting agent to enforce her confidentiality aims. To this end, we show how skeptical entailment could be computed via deduction with respect to an appropriate axiomatization of the class of consequence relations on which skeptical entailment is based. In particular, we present control procedures using the skeptical entailment operator and prove that these procedures effectively enforce confidentiality by means of refusal even if the requesting agent also takes their execution into consideration (meta-inference).

[1]  Grigoris Antoniou,et al.  Nonmonotonic reasoning , 1997 .

[2]  Yves Moinard Plausibility Structures for Default Reasoning , 2004, ECAI.

[3]  Hongtao Li,et al.  Modeling and evaluating information leakage caused by inferences in supply chains , 2011, Comput. Ind..

[4]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Three Scenarios for the Revision of Epistemic States , 2008, J. Log. Comput..

[5]  Joachim Biskup,et al.  Keeping secrets in incomplete databases , 2007, International Journal of Information Security.

[6]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Conditional Objects and Possibility Theory , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Christoph Beierle,et al.  A Conceptual Agent Model Based on a Uniform Approach to Various Belief Operations , 2009, KI.

[8]  Joachim Biskup,et al.  Controlled query evaluation for enforcing confidentiality in complete information systems , 2004, International Journal of Information Security.

[9]  Moisés Goldszmidt,et al.  On the Consistency of Defeasible Databases , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Secrecy in Multiagent Systems , 2008, TSEC.

[11]  Yuri Gurevich,et al.  Logic in Computer Science , 1993, Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science.

[12]  Gillier,et al.  Logic for Computer Science , 1986 .

[13]  Joachim Biskup,et al.  Revising Belief without Revealing Secrets , 2012, FoIKS.

[14]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal , 2022 .

[15]  Wolfgang Spohn,et al.  Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States , 1988 .

[16]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Handbook of Knowledge Representation , 2008, Handbook of Knowledge Representation.

[17]  Joachim Biskup,et al.  Inference-Proof View Update Transactions with Minimal Refusals , 2011, DPM/SETOP.

[18]  Didier Dubois,et al.  A Simple Modal Logic for Reasoning about Revealed Beliefs , 2009, ECSQARU.

[19]  Joachim Biskup Inference-usability confinement by maintaining inference-proof views of an information system , 2012, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng..

[20]  Lena Wiese,et al.  Keeping Secrets in Possibilistic Knowledge Bases with Necessity-Valued Privacy Policies , 2010, IPMU.

[21]  Laura Giordano,et al.  KLMLean 2.0: A Theorem Prover for KLM Logics of Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 2007, TABLEAUX.

[22]  Manu Goyal,et al.  Strategic Information Management Under Leakage in a Supply Chain , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[23]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  Logical foundations of artificial intelligence , 1987 .

[24]  Daniel Lehmann,et al.  What does a Conditional Knowledge Base Entail? , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[25]  Michael R. Clarkson,et al.  Quantifying information flow with beliefs , 2009, J. Comput. Secur..

[26]  Thomas Lukasiewicz,et al.  Complexity Results for Default Reasoning from Conditional Knowledge Bases , 2000, KR.

[27]  Joachim Biskup Usability Confinement of Server Reactions: Maintaining Inference-Proof Client Views by Controlled Interaction Execution , 2010, DNIS.

[28]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Dynamic logic for belief revision , 2007, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[29]  Barbara Messing,et al.  An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems , 2002, Künstliche Intell..

[30]  Berilhes Borges Garcia,et al.  Towards Default Reasoning through MAX-SAT , 2002, SBIA.

[31]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Analytic Tableau Calculi for KLM Rational Logic R , 2006, JELIA.

[32]  Joachim Biskup,et al.  Policy-Based Secrecy in the Runs & Systems Framework and Controlled Query Evaluation , 2010, IWSEC.

[33]  Richard Booth,et al.  Reconstructing an Agent's Epistemic State from Observations , 2005, IJCAI.

[34]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[35]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Plausibility measures and default reasoning , 1996, JACM.

[36]  Eyke Hüllermeier,et al.  Computational Intelligence for Knowledge-Based Systems Design, 13th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty, IPMU 2010, Dortmund, Germany, June 28 - July 2, 2010. Proceedings , 2010, IPMU.

[37]  Joachim Biskup,et al.  Inference-proof view update transactions with forwarded refreshments , 2011, J. Comput. Secur..

[38]  Gabriele Kern-Isberner,et al.  Linking Iterated Belief Change Operations to Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 2008, KR.

[39]  Ramón Pino Pérez,et al.  Beyond Rational Monotony: Some Strong Non-Horn Rules for Nonmonotonic Inference Relations , 1997, J. Log. Comput..

[40]  Giovanni Rimassa,et al.  BDI-agents for agile goal-oriented business processes , 2008, AAMAS.

[41]  Duminda Wijesekera,et al.  Status-Based Access Control , 2008, TSEC.

[42]  Joachim Biskup,et al.  Towards Enforcement of Confidentiality in Agent Interactions , 2008 .

[43]  Joseph Y. Halpern Reasoning about uncertainty , 2003 .

[44]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 1988, We Will Show Them!.