Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 293–359 | Cite as

A Trust/Honesty Model with Adaptive Strategy for Multiagent Semi-Competitive Environments

Article

Abstract

In multiagent semi-competitive environments, competitions and cooperations can both exist. As agents compete with each other, they have incentives to lie. Sometimes, agents can increase their utilities by cooperating with each other, then they have incentives to tell the truth. Therefore, being a receiver, an agent needs to decide whether or not to trust the received message(s). To help agents make this decision, some of the existing models make use of trust or reputation only, which means agents choose to believe (or cooperate with) the trustworthy senders or senders with high reputation. However, a trustworthy agent may only bring little benefit. Another way to make the decision is to use expected utility. However, agents who only believe messages with high expected utilities can be cheated easily. To solve the problems, this paper introduces the Trust Model, which makes use of trust, expected utility, and also agents’ attitudes towards risk to make decisions. On the other hand, being a sender, an agent needs to decide whether or not to be honest. To help agents make this decision, this paper introduces the Honesty Model, which is symmetric to the Trust Model. In addition, we introduce an adaptive strategy to the Trust/Honesty Model, which enables agents to learn from and adapt to the environment. Simulations show that agents with the Adaptive Trust/Honesty Model perform much better than agents which only use trust or expected utility to make the decision

Keywords

trust honesty adaptation rationality semi-competitive environment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    AmosWEB Economic Gloss. http://www.amosweb.com/gls.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Analysis of Variance. http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/anova.html.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cambridge Dictionaries Online. http://dictionary.cambridge.org, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Merriam-Webster OnLine. http://www.webster.com, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Axelrod, R. 1984The Evolution of Cooperation, DBasic BooksNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Babanov, J. Collins, and M. Gini, Risk and expectations in a-priori time allocation in multi-agent contracting in Proceedings of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 53–60, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bernoulli, D. 1954“Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk”Comentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae (1738), as translated and reprinted in, Econometrica222336MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandenburger, A. 1992“Knowledge and equilibrium in games”J. Econ. Perspec.683101Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Castelfranchi and R. Falcone, Principles of trust for MAS: Cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multiagent Systems, pp. 72–79, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Castelfranchi, R. Falcone, and G. Pezzulo, Trust in information sources as a source for trust: a fuzzy approach in Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agent and Multiagent Systems, pp. 89–96, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dulebohn, J.H. 2002“An investigation of the determinants of investment risk behavior in employer-sponsored retirement plans”J.-Manage.28326Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falcone and C. Castelfranchi, Social trust: A cognitive approach Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 55–90, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feldman, J.A., Sproull, R.F. 1977“Decision theory and artificial intelligence II: The hungry monkey”Cognitive Sci.1158192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Fishburn, The Foundations of Expected Utility, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1981.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gagne, R. 1985The Conditions of Learning4Holt, Rinehart and WinstonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Glass and B. Grosz, Socially conscious decision-making in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 217–224, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gmytrasiewicz, P.J., Durfee, E.H. 1993“Toward a theory of honesty and trust among communicating autonomous agents”Group Decision Negotiat.2237258Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P.J. Gmytrasiewicz and E.H. Durfee, “A rigorous, operational formalization of recursive modeling,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on multiagent Systems, pp. 125–132, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gmytrasiewicz, P.J., Durfee, E.H. 2000“Rational coordination in multiagent environments”Autonomous Agents, multiagent Syst.3319350Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gmytrasiewicz, P.J., Durfee, E.H. 2001“Rational communication in multiagent environments”Autonomous Agents, multiagent Syst.4233272Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    N. Griffiths and M. Luck, “Coalition formation through motivation and trust,” in Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agent and Multiagent Systems, pp. 17–24, 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Gross, Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour, Hodder and Stoughton, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, Russell Sage Foundation, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    He, M., Leung, H.F., Jennings, N. 2003“A fuzzy-logic based bidding strategy for autonomous agents in continuous double auctions”IEEE Trans. Knowledge Data Eng.159851003Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hwang, P., Burgers, W.P. 1997“Properties of trust: An analytical viewOrg. Behav. Human Decision Process696773Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. 1979“Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”Econometrica47263291Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lahey, B.B. 2004Psychology: An IntroductionMcGraw-HillBoston, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    K.M. Lam and H.F. Leung, “Improving the recursive modeling method by recursive formulas,” in Proceedings of Sixth Pacific Rim International Workshop on multiagents, pp. 25–36, 2003.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K.M. Lam and H.F. Leung, “Rational communication in multiagent semi-competitive environments,” in Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1044–1045, 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lam, K.M., Leung, H.F. 2003“Honest, trust, and rational communication in multiagent semi-competitive environments”Lecture Notes Computer Sci.2891158169Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    K.M. Lam and H.F. Leung, A trust/honesty model in multiagent semi-competitive environments in Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    K.M. Lam, Honest, trust, and rational communication in multiagent semi-competitive environments, MPhil thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2004.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liebrand, W., Nowak, A., Hegselmann, R. 1998Computer Modeling of Social ProcessesSageLondon, UKGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Y. Liu, R. Goodwin, and S. Keonig, “Risk-averse auction agents,” in Proceedings of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 353–360, 2003.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luo, X., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N., Leung, H.F., Lee, J.H.M. 2003“Fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments”Artificial Intel.14853102MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    March, J.G. 1996“Learning to be risk averse”Psychol. Rev.103309319Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marsella S.C., Pynadath D.V., Read S.J. “PsychSim: Agent-based modeling of social interactions and influence”. in ICCM, pp. 243–248, 2004.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Marsh, Formalising trust as a computational concept, PhD thesis, University of Stirling, 1994.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    L. Mui, M. Mohtashemi, C. Ang, P. Szolovits and A. Halberstadt, Ratings in distributed systems: A bayesian approach, Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems, 2001.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    L. Mui, M. Mohtashemi, and A. Halberstadt, “A computational model of trust and reputation,” in Proceedings of 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2002.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    L. Mui, A. Halberstadt, and M. Mohtashemi, “Notions of reputation in multiagent systems: A review,” in Proceedings of Autonomous Agents and multiagent Systems, 2002.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, 1944.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    D.V. Pynadath and S.C. Marsella, “PsychSim: Modeling theory of mind with decision-theorectic agents,” in Proceeding of The Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1181–1186, 2005.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Raiffa, H. 1982The Art and Science of NegotiationHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ramchurn S.D., Huynh D., Jennings N.R. “Trust in multiagent systems”. Knowledge Eng. Rev. vol. 19 no. 1, 2004.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rosenberg, M.J., Hovland, C.I. 1960

    “Cognitive, affective, and behavioural components of attitude”

    Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components.Yale University PressNew Haven, CT
    Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    J.S. Rosenschein and M.R. Genesereth, “Deals among rational agents,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 91–99, 1985.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    J.C. Rubiera, J.M.M. Lopez, and J.D. Muro, “A fuzzy model of reputation in multiagent systems,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 25–26, 2001.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    J. Sabater and C. Sierra, “REGRET: A reputation model for gregarious societies,” in Proceedings of Fourth International Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 61–70, 2001.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    A.Q. Sartain, A.J. North, J.R. Strange, and H.M. Chapman, Psychology Understanding Human Behavior, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    M. Schillo, C. Kray, and K. Fischer, “The Eager Bidder Problem: A fundamental problem of DAI and selected solutions,” in Proceedings of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 599–606, 2002.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Smith E.R. Social psychology. Psychology Press, Philadelphia PA, pp. c2000.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E., Dutton, J.E. 1981“Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysisAdmin. Sci. Quart.26501524Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vedder, P., Veendrick, A. 2003“The role of the task and reward structure in cooperative learning”Scand. J. Edu. Research47529542Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    P. Vytelingum, R.K. Dash, E. David, and N.R. Jennings, “A risk-based bidding strategy for continuous double auctions,” in Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 79–83, 2004.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weber, E.U., Shafir, S., Blais, A.R. 2004“Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: risk as variance or coefficient of variation”Psychol. Rev.111430445Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    G. Weiss, Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, The MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Worchel, P. 1979

    “Trust and distrust”

    The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.Brooks/Cole Publishing CompanyCalifornia174187
    Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    M. Wooldridge, An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. 2001.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Xie, X.F., Wang, X.T. 2003“Risk perception and risky choice: Situational, informational and dispositional effects”Asian J. Soc. Psychol.6117132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    B. Yu and M.P. Singh, Towards a probabilistic model of distributed reputation management in Proceedings of Fourth International Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 125–137, 2001.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    B. Yu and M.P. Singh, Detecting deception in reputation management in Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agent and Multiagent Systems, pp. 73–80, 2003.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    G. Zlotkin and J.S. Rosenschein, Negotiation and task sharing among autonomous agents in co-operative domains in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 912–917, 1989.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    G. Zlotkin and J.S. Rosenschein, Negotiation and conflict resolution in non-cooperative domains in Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 100–105, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Chinese University of Hong KongChina

Personalised recommendations