Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 896–933 | Cite as

Trust-oriented buyer strategies for seller reporting and selection in competitive electronic marketplaces

  • Zeinab Noorian
  • Jie Zhang
  • Yuan Liu
  • Stephen Marsh
  • Michael Fleming


In competitive electronic marketplaces where some selling agents may be dishonest and quality products offered by good sellers are limited, selecting the most profitable sellers as transaction partners is challenging, especially when buying agents lack personal experience with sellers. Reputation systems help buyers to select sellers by aggregating seller information reported by other buyers (called advisers). However, in such competitive marketplaces, buyers may also be concerned about the possibility of losing business opportunities with good sellers if they report truthful seller information. In this paper, we propose a trust-oriented mechanism built on a game theoretic basis for buyers to: (1) determine an optimal seller reporting strategy, by modeling the trustworthiness (competency and willingness) of advisers in reporting seller information; (2) discover sellers who maximize their profit by modeling the trustworthiness of sellers and considering the buyers’ preferences on product quality. Experimental results confirm that competitive marketplaces operating with our mechanism lead to better profit for buyers and create incentives for seller honesty.


Trust and reputation Competitive e-marketplaces Trust-strategic  Seller selection Auction 


  1. 1.
    Berger, J. O. (1985). Statistical decision theory and bayesian analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, E., Hussain, F., & Dillon, T. (2005). Trust and reputation for service-oriented environments: Technologies for building business intelligence and consumer confidence. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Che, Y.-K. (1991). Design competition through multidimensional auctions. Working papers, Wisconsin Madison-Social Systems.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Comuzzi, M., & Pernici, B. (2005). An architecture for flexible web service QoS negotiation. In Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference (pp. 70–82).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    David, E., Azoulay-Schwartz, R., & Kraus, S. (2002). Protocols and strategies for automated multi-attribute auctions. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS’02 (pp. 77–85).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    David, E., Azoulay-Schwartz, R., & Kraus, S. (2006). Bidding in sealed-bid and English multi-attribute auctions. Decision Support Systems, 42(2), 527–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haghpanah, Y., & Desjardins, M. (2012). PRep: A proabilistic reputation model for biased societies. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 315–322).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huynh, T. D., Jennings, N. R., & Shadbolt, N. R. (2006). An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 13(2), 119–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jøsang, A., & Ismail, R. (2002). The beta reputation system. In Proceedings of the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference (pp. 41–55).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jurca, R. (2007). Truthful reputation mechanisms for online systems. PhD thesis, EPFL.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khosravifar, B., Bentahar, J., Moazin, A., & Thiran, P. (2010). On the reputation of agent-based web services. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 1352–1357).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., & Halberstadt, A. (2002). A computational model of trust and reputation for e-businesses. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2431–2439).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nina Mazar, D. A., & Amir, On. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noorian, Z., Marsh, S., & Fleming, M. (2011). Multi-layer cognitive filtering by behavioral modeling. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) (pp. 871–878).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noorian, Z., Marsh, S., & Fleming, M. (2011). Prob-Cog: An adaptive filtering model for trust evaluation. In I. Wakeman, E. Gudes, C. Jensen, & J. Crampton (Eds.), Trust Management V. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (Vol.358, pp. 206–222). Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noorian, Z., & Ulieru, M. (August 2010). The state of the art in trust and reputation systems: A framework for comparison. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 5, 97–117.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Regan, K., Poupart, P., & Cohen, R. Bayesian reputation modeling in e-marketplaces sensitive to subjectivity, deception and change. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith, M. J., & Desjardins, M. (2009). Learning to trust in the competence and commitment of agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 18, 36–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strecker, S., & Seifert, S. (2004). Electronic sourcing with multi-attribute auctions. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’04) (pp. 701–712).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teacy, W. T. L., Patel, N. R. J. J., & Luck, M. (2006). TRAVOS: Trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Journal of, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 12(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Teacy, W. T. L., Luck, M., Rogers, A., & Jennings, N. R. (2012). An efficient and versatile approach to trust and reputation using hierarchical bayesian modelling. Artificial Intelligence, 193, 149–185.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vidal, J. (2001). Fundamentals of multiagent systems with NetLogo examples. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vignaux, G. (2004). Multi-attribute decision problems. Technical report, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, Y., Singh, M. P. (2007). Formal trust model for multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifical, Intelligence (Vol. 7, pp. 1551–1556).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xiong, L., & Liu, L. (2004). PeerTrust: Supporting reputation-based trust for peer-to-peer electronic communities. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 16(7), 843–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu, B., & Singh, M. P. (2003). Detecting deception in reputation management. In Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, ACM (pp. 73–80).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, J. (2009). Promoting honesty in electronic marketplaces: Combining Trust modeling and incentive mechanism design. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang, J., & Cohen, R. (2013). A framework for trust modeling in multiagent electronic marketplaces with buying advisors to consider varying seller behavior and the limiting of seller bids. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (ACM TIST), 4, 1–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zeinab Noorian
    • 1
  • Jie Zhang
    • 2
  • Yuan Liu
    • 2
  • Stephen Marsh
    • 3
  • Michael Fleming
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada
  2. 2.School of Computer EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Faculty of Business and Information TechnologyUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyOshawaCanada

Personalised recommendations