Learning Initial Trust Among Interacting Agents

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4676)


Trust learning is a crucial aspect of information exchange, negotiation, and any other kind of social interaction among autonomous agents in open systems. But most current probabilistic models for computational trust learning lack the ability to take context into account when trying to predict future behavior of interacting agents. Moreover, they are not able to transfer knowledge gained in a specific context to a related context. Humans, by contrast, have proven to be especially skilled in perceiving traits like trustworthiness in such so-called initial trust situations. The same restriction applies to most multiagent learning problems. In complex scenarios most algorithms do not scale well to large state-spaces and need numerous interactions to learn. We argue that trust related scenarios are best represented in a system of relations to capture semantic knowledge. Following recent work on nonparametric Bayesian models we propose a flexible and context sensitive way to model and learn multidimensional trust values which is particularly well suited to establish trust among strangers without prior relationship. To evaluate our approach we extend a multiagent framework by allowing agents to break an agreed interaction outcome retrospectively. The results suggest that the inherent ability to discover clusters and relationships between clusters that are best supported by the data allows to make predictions about future behavior of agents especially when initial trust is involved.


Trust in Multiagent Systems Information Agents Agent Negotiation Initial Trust Relational Learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ramchurn, S.D., Hunyh, D., Jennings, N.R.: Trust in multi-agent systems. Knowledge Engineering Review (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Willis, J., Todorov, A.: First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science 17(7), 592–598 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu, J., Wellman, M.P.: Multiagent reinforcement learning: Theoretical framework and an algorithm. In: Shavlik, J.W. (ed.) ICML, pp. 242–250. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murray, C., Gordon, G.: Multi-robot negotiation: Approximating the set of subgame perfect equilibria in general sum stochastic games. In: Schölkopf, B., Platt, J., Hoffman, T. (eds.) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Littman, M.L.: Markov games as a framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning. In: ICML, pp. 157–163 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, X., Sandholm, T.: Reinforcement learning to play an optimal nash equilibrium in team markov games. In: Becker, S., Obermayer, S.T. (eds.) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 15, pp. 1571–1578. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shoham, Y., Powers, R., Grenager, T.: If multi-agent learning is the answer, what is the question? Technical Report 122247000000001156, UCLA Department of Economics (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, G.: Iterative solution of games by fictitious play. In: Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1951)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caruana, R.: Multitask learning. Mach. Learn. 28(1), 41–75 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krogel, M.A.: On Propositionalization for Knowledge Discovery in Relational Databases. PhD thesis, die Fakultät für Informatik der Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu, Z., Tresp, V., Yu, K., Kriegel, H.-P.: Infinite hidden relational models. In: UAI 2006. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Uncertainity in Artificial Intelligence (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kemp, C., Tenenbaum, J.B., Griffiths, T.L., Yamada, T., Ueda, N.: Learning systems of concepts with an infinite relational model. In: AAAI (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heckerman, D., Meek, C., Koller, D.: Probabilistic models for relational data. Technical Report MSR-TR-2004-30, Microsoft Research (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meilă, M.: Comparing clusterings: an axiomatic view. In: ICML 2005. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, pp. 577–584. ACM Press, New York, USA (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teacy, W.T.L.: Agent-Based Trust and Reputation in the Context of Inaccurate Information Sources. PhD thesis, Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maximilien, E.M., Singh, M.P.: Agent-based trust model involving multiple qualities. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: REGRET: reputation in gregarious societies. In: Müller, J.P., Andre, E., Sen, S., Frasson, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 194–195. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ashri, R., Ramchurn, S.D., Sabater, J., Luck, M., Jennings, N.R.: Trust evaluation through relationship analysis. In: AAMAS 2005. Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 1005–1011. ACM Press, New York, USA (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sun, L., Jiao, L., Wang, Y., Cheng, S., Wang, W.: An adaptive group-based reputation system in peer-to-peer networks. In: Deng, X., Ye, Y. (eds.) WINE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3828, pp. 651–659. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AI/Cognition Group, Technical University of Munich, D-85748 Garching bei MünchenGermany
  2. 2.Corporate Technology, Siemens AG, Information and Communications, MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations