Effective Use of Organisational Abstractions for Confidence Models

  • Ramón Hermoso
  • Holger Billhardt
  • Roberto Centeno
  • Sascha Ossowski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4457)

Abstract

Trust and reputation mechanisms are commonly used to infer expectations of future behaviour from past interactions. They are of particular relevance when agents have to choose appropriate counterparts for their interactions as it may also happen within virtual organisations. However, when agents join an organisation, information about past interactions is usually not available. The use of organisational structures can tackle this problem and can improve the efficiency of trust and reputation mechanisms by endowing agents with some extra information to choose the best agents to interact with. In this context, we present how certain structural properties of virtual organisations can be used to build an efficient trust model in a local way. Furthermore, we introduce a testbed (TOAST) that allows to analyse different trust and reputation models in situations where agents act within virtual organisations. We experimentally evaluate our approach and show its validity.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdul-Rahman, A., Hailes, S.: Supporting trust in virtual communities. In: HICSS 2000. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 1769–1777 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aberer, K., Despotovic, Z.: Managing trust in a peer-2-peer information system. In: CIKM 2001. Proceedings of the tenth international Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 310–317. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Esteva, M., Rodriguez, J.A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P., Arcos, J.L.: On the formal specifications of electronic institutions. In: Dignum, F., Sierra, C. (eds.) CP-WS 1996 and CDB 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1191, pp. 126–147. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Arcos, J.Ll.: AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 1, pp. 236–243 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A meta-model for the analysis of organizations in multi-agent systems. In: Demazeau, Y. (ed.) ICMAS 1998. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Paris, France, pp. 128–135. IEEE Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganesan, P., Garcia-Molina, H., Widom, J.: Exploiting hierarchical domain structure to compute similarity. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 21(1), 64–93 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hermoso, R., Billhardt, H., Ossowski, S.: Integrating trust in virtual organisations. In: AAMAS-06 Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in agent systems (COIN), pp. 121–133 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fred Hübner, J., Simão Sichman, J., Boissier, O.: Using the moise+ for a cooperative framework of mas reorganisation. In: Bazzan, A.L.C., Labidi, S. (eds.) SBIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3171, pp. 506–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huynh, T.D., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N.R.: Developing an integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. In: Falcone, R., Barber, S., Sabater, J., Singh, M. (eds.) AAMAS-04 Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 62–77 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huynh, T.D., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N.R.: FIRE: An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. In: ECAI. Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 119–154 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, Y., Bandar, Z.A., McLean, D.: An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15(4), 871–882 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Odell, J., Nodine, M.H., Levy, R.: A metamodel for agents, roles, and groups. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 78–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Omicini, A., Ossowski, S., Ricci, A.: Coordination infrastructures in the engineering of multiagent systems. In: Bergenti, F., Gleizes, M.-P., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems: The Agent-Oriented Software Engineering Handbook, vol. 14, pp. 273–296. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Omicini, A., Ossowski, S.: Objective versus subjective coordination in the engineering of agent systems. In: Klusch, M., Bergamaschi, S., Edwards, P., Petta, P. (eds.) Intelligent Information Agents. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2586, pp. 179–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramchurn, S.D., Sierra, C., Godó, L., Jennings, N.R.: A computational trust model for multi-agent interactions based on confidence and reputation. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop of Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 69–75 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: REGRET: a reputation model for gregarious societies. In: Müller, J.P., Andre, E., Sen, S., Frasson, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada, pp. 194–195. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In: AAMAS 2002. Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 475–482. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schumacher, M., Ossowski, S.: The governing environment. In: Weyns, D., Parunak, H.V.D., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3830, pp. 88–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sensoy, M., Yolum, P.: A context-aware approach for service selection using ontologies. In: AAMAS 2006. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 931–938 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Serrano, J.M., Ossowski, S., Fernández, A.: The pragmatics of software agents - analysis and design of agent communication languages. In: Klusch, M., Bergamaschi, S., Edwards, P., Petta, P. (eds.) Intelligent Information Agents. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2586, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Serrano, J.M., Ossowski, S.: On the impact of agent communication languages on the implementation of agent systems. In: Klusch, Ossowski, Kashyap (eds.) Cooperative Information Agents VIII, pp. 92–106 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luke Teacy, W.T., Patel, J., Jennings, N.R., Luck, M.: Travos: Trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 12(2), 183–198 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J., Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: Organizing multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(3), 307–360 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yu, B., Singh, M.P.: An evidential model of distributed reputation management. In: AAMAS 2002. Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 294–301. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu, B., Singh, M.P., Sycara, K.: Developing trust in large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings of First IEEE Symposium on Multi-Agent Security and Survivability, pp. 1–10 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Organizational abstractions for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 235–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramón Hermoso
    • 1
  • Holger Billhardt
    • 1
  • Roberto Centeno
    • 1
  • Sascha Ossowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Group - DATCCCIA, University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid (Spain) 

Personalised recommendations