Advertisement

The Social Concept of Trust as Enabler for Robustness in Open Self-Organising Systems

  • Gerrit AndersEmail author
  • Hella Seebach
  • Jan-Philipp Steghöfer
  • Wolfgang Reif
  • Elisabeth André
  • Jörg Hähner
  • Christian Müller-Schloer
  • Theo Ungerer
Chapter
Part of the Autonomic Systems book series (ASYS)

Abstract

The participants in open self-organising systems, including users and autonomous agents, operate in a highly uncertain environment in which the agents’ benevolence cannot be assumed. One way to address this challenge is to use computational trust. By extending the notion of trust as a qualifier of relationships between agents and incorporating trust into the agents’ decisions, they can cope with uncertainties stemming from unintentional as well as intentional misbehaviour. As a consequence, the system’s robustness and efficiency increases. In this context, we show how an extended notion of trust can be used in the formation of system structures, algorithmically to mitigate uncertainties in task and resource allocation, and as a sanctioning and incentive mechanism. Beyond that, we outline how the users’ trust in a self-organising system can be increased, which is decisive for the acceptance of these systems.

Keywords

Computational trust Uncertainty Self-organisation Open MAS Robustness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is partly sponsored by the research unit OC-Trust (FOR 1085) of the German Research Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Pasquier, P., Flores, R., Chaib-draa, B.: Modelling flexible social commitments and their enforcement. In: Gleizes, M.-P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) Engineering Societies in the Agents World V, vol. 3451, pp. 898–898. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2005). ISBN:978-3-540-27330-1Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artikis, A., Pitt, J.: Specifying open agent systems: a survey. In: Artikis, A., Picard, G., Vercouter, L. (eds.) Engineering Societies in the Agents World IX, vol. 5485, pp. 29–45. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2009). ISBN:978-3-642-02561-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cossentino, M., Gaud, N., Hilaire, V., Galland, S., Koukam, A.: ASPECS: an agent-oriented software process for engineering complex systems. Auton. Agents Multi-agent Syst. 20, 260–304 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boon, S., Holmes, J.: The dynamics of interpersonal trust: resolving uncertainty in the face of risk. In: Hinde, R., Groebel, J. (eds.) Cooperation and Prosocial Behaviour, pp. 190–211. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., Camerer, C.: Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 393–404 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ba, S., Pavlou, P.: Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Q. 26, 243–268 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., Halberstadt, A.: A computational model of trust and reputation. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’02), Big Island, pp. 188–196 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corritore, C., Kracher, B., Wiedenbeck, S.: On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 58, 737–758 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koller, M.: Risk as a determinant of trust. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 9, 265–276 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramchurn, S., Huynh, D., Jennings, N.: Trust in multi-agent systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 19, 1–25 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marsh, S.P.: Formalising trust as a computational concept. PhD thesis, University of Stirling Digital Repository (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kantert, J., Edenhofer, S., Tomforde, S., Hähner, J., Müller-Schloer, C.: Normative control – controlling open distributed systems with autonomous entities. In: Reif, W., Anders, G., Seebach, H., Steghöfer, J.-P., André, E., Hähner, J., Müller-Schloer, C., Ungerer, T. (eds.) Autonomic Systems, vol. 7, pp. 87–123 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust (English). Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 709–734 (1995). ISSN:03637425Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, H., Shen, Z., Leung, C., Miao, C., Lesser, V.: A survey of multi-agent trust management systems. IEEE Access 1, 35–50 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Social regret, a reputation model based on social relations. ACM SIGecom Exch. 3, 44–56 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., Sierra, C., Godo, L.: Devising a trust model for multiagent interactions using confidence and reputation. Appl. Artif. Intell. 18, 833–852 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jonker, C., Treur, J.: Formal analysis of models for the dynamics of trust based on experiences. In: Garijo, F., Boman, M. (eds.) Multi-agent System Engineering, vol. 1647, pp. 221–231. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (1999). ISBN:978-3-540-66281-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Social trust: a cognitive approach. In: Castelfranchi, C., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, pp. 55–90. Kluwer Academic, Norwell (2001). ISBN:0-7923-6919-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKnight, D., Cummings, L., Chervany, N.: Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 473–490 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jøsang, A., Pope, S.: Semantic constraints for trust transitivity. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, vol. 43, pp. 59–68. Australian Computer Society, Newcastle (2005). ISBN:1-920-68225-2Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Good, D.: Individuals, interpersonal relations, and trust. In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 31–48. Department of Sociology, University of Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones, K.: Trust as an affective attitude (English). Ethics 107, 4–25 (1996). ISSN:00141704Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    He, R., Niu, J., Zhang, G.: CBTM: A trust model with uncertainty quantification and reasoning for pervasive computing. In: Pan, Y., Chen, D., Guo, M., Cao, J., Dongarra, J. (eds.) Parallel and Distributed Processing and Applications, pp. 541–552. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2005). ISBN:978-3-540-29769-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, Y., Singh, M.P.: Formal trust model for multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, pp. 1551–1556. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuter, U., Golbeck, J.: Using probabilistic confidence models for trust inference in web-based social networks. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 10, 8:1–8:23 (2010). ISSN:1533-5399Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marsh, S.: Optimism and pessimism in trust. In: In Proceedings of the Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA ’94), Caracas. McGraw-Hill Publishing (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schillo, M., Funk, P., Rovatsos, M.: Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societies. Appl. Artif. Intell. 14, 825–848 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aref, A.M., Tran, T.T.: A decentralized trustworthiness estimation model for open, multiagent systems (DTMAS). J. Trust Manag. 2, 1–20 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jøsang, A.: Robustness of trust and reputation systems: does it matter? In: Proceedings of IFIPTM International Conference on Trust Management (IFIPTM 2012), Surat. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sun, Y., Han, Z., Liu, K.: Defense of trust management vulnerabilities in distributed networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 46, 112–119 (2008). ISSN:0163-6804Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yao, Y., Ruohomaa, S., Xu, F.: Addressing common vulnerabilities of reputation systems for electronic commerce. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 7, 1–20 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F.: Ubi Lex, Ibi Poena: designing norm enforcement in E-institutions. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Fornara, N., Matson, E. (eds.) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems II, vol. 4386, pp. 101–114. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2007). ISBN:978-3-540-74457-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Horling, B., Lesser, V.: A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 19, 281–316 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shehory, O., Kraus, S.: Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation. Artif. Intell. 101, 165–200 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Breban, S., Vassileva, J.: Long-term coalitions for the electronic marketplace. In: Proceedings of the E-Commerce Applications Workshop at the Canadian AI Conference, Ottawa (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Breban, S., Vassileva, J.: A coalition formation mechanism based on inter-agent trust relationships. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Part 1, pp. 306–307. ACM, New York (2002). ISBN:1-58113-480-0Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Griffiths, N., Luck, M.: Coalition formation through motivation and trust. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 17–24. ACM, Melbourne (2003). ISBN:1-58113-683-8Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chalkiadakis, G., Robu, V., Kota, R., Rogers, A., Jennings, N.R.: Cooperatives of distributed energy resources for efficient virtual power plants. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Taipei, vol. 2, pp. 787–794 (2011). ISBN:0-9826571-6-1, 978-0-9826571-6-4Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chevaleyre, Y., Dunne, P.E., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Lemaître, M., Maudet, N., Padget, J., Phelps, S., Rodríguez-aguilar, J.A., Sousa, P.: Issues in multiagent resource allocation. Informatica 30, 3–31 (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dash, R.K., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R.: Trust-based mechanism design. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 2, pp. 748–755. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shapiro, A., Dentcheva, D., Ruszczyński, A.: Lectures on Stochastic Programming: Modeling and Theory. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia (2014)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hentenryck, P.V., Bent, R.: Online Stochastic Combinatorial Optimization. MIT Press, Cambridge/London (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Porter, R., Ronen, A., Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: Mechanism design with execution uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Edmonton, pp. 414–421 (2002)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dash, R., Vytelingum, P., Rogers, A., David, E., Jennings, N.: Market-based task allocation mechanisms for limited-capacity suppliers. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A: IEEE Trans. Syst. Hum. 37, 391–405 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vytelingum, P., Voice, T., Ramchurn, S., Rogers, A., Jennings, N.: Agent-based micro-storage management for the smart grid. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Toronto, vol. 1, pp. 39–46 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pitt, J., Nowak, A.: The reinvention of social capital for socio-technical systems [Special Section Introduction]. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 33, 27–80 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ostrom, E.: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pitt, J., Schaumeier, J., Artikis, A.: Axiomatization of socio-economic principles for self-organizing institutions: concepts, experiments and challenges. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. (TAAS) 7, 39 (2012)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., van der Torre, L.: Normative systems in computer science – ten guidelines for normative multiagent systems. In: Boella, G., Noriega, P., Pigozzi, G., Verhagen, H. (eds.) Normative Multi-agent Systems. Schloss Dagstuhl, Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2009)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Norms as mental objects. From normative beliefs to normative goals. In: Castelfranchi, C., Müller, J.-P. (eds.) From Reaction to Cognition, vol. 957, pp. 186–196. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (1995). ISBN:978-3-540-60155-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vasalou, A., Pitt, J.: Reinventing forgiveness: a formal investigation of moral facilitation. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S. (eds.) Trust Management, vol. 3477, pp. 39–90. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2005). ISBN:978-3-540-26042-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Marsh, S., Briggs, P.: Examining trust, forgiveness and regret as computational concepts. In: Golbeck, J. (ed.) Computing with Social Trust, pp. 9–43. Springer, London (2009). ISBN:978-1-84800-356-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. (TOCL) 10, 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rothrock, L., Koubek, R., Fuchs, F., Haas, M., Salvendy, G.: Review and reappraisal of adaptive interfaces: toward biologically inspired paradigms. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 3, 47–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Müller, J., Exeler, J., Buzeck, M., Krüger, A.: ReflectiveSigns: digital signs that adapt to audience attention. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Pervasive Computing, pp. 17–24. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Röcker, C., Hinske, S., Magerkurth, C.: Intelligent privacy support for large public displays. In: Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction International 2007 (HCII’07). Beijing, China (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Grandison, T., Sloman, M.: A survey of trust in internet applications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 3, 2–16 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kini, A., Choobineh, J.: Trust in electronic commerce: definition and theoretical considerations. Proc. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. 31, 51–61 (1998)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, W.: A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Rev. Educ. Res. 70, 547 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Glass, A., McGuinness, D.L., Wolverton, M.: Toward establishing trust in adaptive agents. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’08), pp. 227–236. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hammer, S., Wißner, M., André, E.: A user trust model for automatic decision-making in ubiquitous and self-adaptive environments. In: Reif, W., Anders, G., Seebach, H., Steghöfer, J.-P., André, E., Hähner, J., Müller-Schloer, C., Ungerer, T. (eds.) Autonomic Systems, vol. 7, pp. 55–86 (2016)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Yan, Z., Holtmanns, S.: Computer Security Privacy and Politics: Current Issues, Challenges and Solutions, pp. 290–323. IGI Global. Hershey, USA (2008)Google Scholar

References Originating from the OC-Trust Project

  1. OCT1.
    Anders, G., Schiendorfer, A., Siefert, F., Steghöfer, J.-P., Reif, W.: Cooperative resource allocation in open systems of systems. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 10, 11:1–11:44 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. OCT2.
    Anders, G., Siefert, F., Steghöfer, J.-P., Reif, W.: Trust-based scenarios – predicting future agent behavior in open self-organizing systems. In: Elmenreich, W., Dressler, F., Loreto, V. (eds.) Self-Organizing Systems, vol. 8221, pp. 90–102. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2014). ISBN:978-3-642-54139-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. OCT3.
    Steghöfer, J.-P., Reif, W.: Die Guten, die Bösen und die Vertrauenswürdigen–Vertrauen im Organic Computing. Informatik-Spektrum 35, 119–131 (2012) (in German)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. OCT4.
    Kiefhaber, R., Anders, G., Siefert, F., Ungerer, T., Reif, W.: Confidence as a means to assess the accuracy of trust values. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom-2012), Liverpool, pp. 690–697. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  5. OCT5.
    Kiefhaber, R., Jahr, R., Msadek, N., Ungerer, T.: Ranking of direct trust, confidence, and reputation in an abstract system with unreliable components. In: Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing, 2013 IEEE 10th International Conference on and 10th International Conference on Autonomic and Trusted Computing (UIC/ATC), Sorrento Peninsula, Italy, pp. 388–395 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. OCT6.
    Kiefhaber, R., Hammer, S., Savs, B., Schmitt, J., Roth, M., Kluge, F., Andre, E., Ungerer, T.: The neighbor-trust metric to measure reputation in organic computing systems. In: 2011 Fifth IEEE Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-organizing Systems Workshops (SASOW), Ann Arbor, pp. 41–46 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. OCT7.
    Bernard, Y., Klejnowski, L., Hähner, J., Müller-Schloer, C.: Towards trust in desktop grid systems. In: IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid, pp. 637–642. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010). ISBN:978-0-7695-4039-9Google Scholar
  8. OCT8.
    Klejnowski, L.: Trusted community: a novel multiagent organisation for open distributed systems. PhD thesis, Leibniz Universität Hannover (2014). http://edok01.tib.uni-hannover.de/edoks/e01dh11/668667427.pdf
  9. OCT9.
    Anders, G., Siefert, F., Reif, W.: A Heuristic for Constrained Set Partitioning in the Light of Heterogeneous Objectives. In: Agents and Artificial Intelligence. LNAI. Lisbon, Portugal (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. OCT10.
    Msadek, N., Kiefhaber, R., Ungerer, T.: A trustworthy fault-tolerant and scalable self-configuration algorithm for organic computing systems. J. Syst. Archit. 61 (10), 511–519 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. OCT11.
    Msadek, N., Kiefhaber, R., Ungerer, T.: Trustworthy self-optimization in organic computing environments. Architecture of Computing Systems – ARCS 2015, pp. 123–134. Porto, Portugal (2015)Google Scholar
  12. OCT12.
    Kantert, J., Scharf, H., Edenhofer, S., Tomforde, S., Hähner, J., Müller-Schloer, C.: A graph analysis approach to detect attacks in multi-agent-systems at runtime. In: 2014 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems, pp. 80–89. IEEE, London (2014)Google Scholar
  13. OCT13.
    Edenhofer, S., Stifter, C., Jänen, U., Kantert, J., Tomforde, S., Hähner, J., Müller-Schloer, C.: An accusation-based strategy to handle undesirable behaviour in multi-agent systems. In: 2015 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Autonomic Computing Workshops (ICACW). Grenoble, France (2015)Google Scholar
  14. OCT14.
    Steghöfer, J.-P., Kiefhaber, R., Leichtenstern, K., Bernard, Y., Klejnowski, L., Reif, W., Ungerer, T., André, E., Hähner, J., Müller-Schloer, C.: Trustworthy organic computing systems: challenges and perspectives. In: Xie, B., Branke, J., Sadjadi, S., Zhang, D., Zhou, X. (eds.) Autonomic and Trusted Computing, vol. 6407, pp. 62–76. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2010). ISBN:978-3-642-16575-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. OCT15.
    Kurdyukova, E., Bee, K., André, E.: Friend or foe? Relationship-based adaptation on public displays. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Ambient Intelligence, pp. 228–237. Springer, Amsterdam (2011). ISBN:978-3-642-25166-5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerrit Anders
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hella Seebach
    • 1
  • Jan-Philipp Steghöfer
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Reif
    • 1
  • Elisabeth André
    • 3
  • Jörg Hähner
    • 4
  • Christian Müller-Schloer
    • 5
  • Theo Ungerer
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute for Software and Systems EngineeringUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmers University of Technology | University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Human-Centered MultimediaUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  4. 4.Organic Computing GroupUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  5. 5.Institute of Systems EngineeringUniversity of HannoverHannoverGermany
  6. 6.Systems and Networking GroupUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations