A Fuzzy Approach to Reasoning with Trust, Distrust and Insufficient Trust

  • Nathan Griffiths
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4149)


Multi-agent systems are based upon cooperative interactions between agents, in which agents provide information, resources and services to others. Typically agents are autonomous and self-interested, meaning that they have control over their own actions, and that they seek to maximise their own goal achievement, rather than necessarily acting in a benevolent or socially-oriented manner. Consequently, interaction outcomes are uncertain since commitments can be broken and the actual services rendered may differ from expectations in terms of cost or quality. Cooperation is, therefore, an uncertain interaction, that has an inherent risk of failure or reduced performance. In this paper we show how agents can use trust to manage this risk. Our approach uses fuzzy logic to represent trust and allow agents to reason with uncertain and imprecise information regarding others’ trustworthiness.


Membership Function Fuzzy Logic Fuzzy Approach Trust Dimension Cooperative Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Principles of trust for MAS: Cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), Paris, France, pp. 72–79 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gambetta, D.: Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 213–237. Basil Blackwell, Malden (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffiths, N.: Trust: Challenges and opportunities. AgentLink News 19, 9–11 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griffiths, N.: Fuzzy trust for peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings of the P2P Data and Knowledge Sharing Workshop (P2P/DAKS 2006) (to appear)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griffiths, N., Chao, K.-M.: Experience-based trust: Enabling effective resource selection in a grid environment. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S.C.K. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 240–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luhmann, N.: Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 94–107. Basil Blackwell, Malden (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mamdani, E.H., Assilian, S.: An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 7(1), 1–13 (1975)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manchala, D.W.: E-commerce trust metrics and models. IEEE Internet Computing 4(2), 36–44 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marsh, S., Dibben, M.R.: Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust — an exploration of the dark(er) side. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S.C.K. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 17–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    NRC Institute for Information Technology. The FuzzyJ toolkit (2006), www.iit.nrc.ca/IR_public/fuzzy/fuzzyJToolkit2.html
  11. 11.
    Ramchurn, S.D., Sierra, C., Godo, L., Jennings, N.R.: Devising a trust model for multi-agent interactions using confidence and reputation. Artificial Intelligence 18(9–10), 833–852 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ross, T.J.: Fuzzy Logic With Engineering Applications, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: REGRET: A reputation model for gregarious societies. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents in Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 475–482 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Song, S., Hwang, K., Zhou, R., Kwok, Y.-K.: Trusted P2P transactions with fuzzy reputation aggregation. IEEE Internet Computing 9(6), 24–34 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stakhanova, N., Basu, S., Wong, J., Stakhanov, O.: Trust framework for P2P networks using peer-profile based anomaly technique. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Security in Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 203–209 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xiong, L., Liu, L.: PeerTrust: Supporting reputation-based trust in peer-to-peer communities. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 16(7), 843–857 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zadeh, L.A.: A fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges. Journal of Cybernetics 2(3), 4–34 (1972)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Griffiths
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations