Certified Trust Model

  • Vanderson Botêlho
  • Fabríco Enembreck
  • Bráulio C. ávila
  • Hilton de Azevedo
  • Edson E. Scalabrin
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 296)


This paper presents a certified confidence model which aims to ensure credibility for information exchanged among agents which inhabit an open environment. Generally speaking, the proposed environment shows a supplier agent b which delivers service for a customer agent a. The agent a returns to b a crypto-graphed evaluation r on the service delivered. The agent b will employ R as testimonial when requested to perform the same task for a distinct customer agent. Our hypotheses are: (i) control over testimonials can be distributed as they are locally stored by the assessed agents, i.e., each assessed agent is the owner of its testimonials; and (ii) testimonials, provided by supplier agents on their services, can be considered reliable since they are encapsulated with public key cryptography. This approach reduces the limitations of confidence models based, respectively, on the experience resulted from direct interaction between agents (direct confidence) and on the indirect experience obtained from reports of witnesses (propagated confidence). Direct confidence is a poor-quality measure for a customer agent a hardly has enough opportunities to interact with a supplier agent b so as to grow a useful knowledge base. Propagated confidence depends on the willingness of witnesses to share their experiences. The empiric model was tested in a multiagent system applied to the stock market, where supplier agents provide recommendations for buying or selling assets and customer agents then choose suppliers based on their reputations. Results demonstrate that the confidence model proposed enables the agents to more efficiently choose partners.


Trust Model Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Direct Trust Good Provider 
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.


  1. 1.
    Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. R.: Pitfalls of agent-oriented development. In: Proceedings 2nd International Conf. on Autonomous Agents, Minnesota, United States (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huynh, T. D., Jennings, N. R., and Shadbolt, N. R: Certified reputation: how an agent can trust a stranger. In: Proceedings 5th international Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Hakodate, Japan (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jennings, N. R., Huynh, D., Shadbold, N. R.: Developing an integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings 7th International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies, New York, United States (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teacy, W. T., Patel, J., Jennings, N. R., and Luck, M: Coping with Inaccurate Reputation Sources: Experimental Analysis of a Probabilistic Trust Model. In: Proceedings 4th Inter. Joint Conf, on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nguyen, G. H., Chatalic, P., and Rousset, M. C.: A probabilistic trust model for semantic peer to peer systems. In: Proceedings International Workshop on Data Management in Peer-To-Peer Systems, Nantes, France (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Aberer, K. and Despotovic, Z.: Managing trust in a peer-2-peer information system. In: Proceedings 10th international Conference on information and Knowledge Management, Atlanta, Georgia, United States (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sabater, J. and Sierra, C.: REGRET: reputation in gregarious societies. In: Proceedings 5th international Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ramchurn, S. D., Huynh, D., and Jennings, N. R.: Trust in multi-agent systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 19, 1 (Mar. 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castelfranchi, C. and Falcone, R.: Principles of Trust for MAS: Cognitive Anatomy, Social Importance, and Quantification. In: Proceedings 3rd international Conference on Multi Agent Systems. ICMAS, Washington, United States (1998).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Griffiths, N.: Task delegation using experience-based multi-dimensional trust. In: Proceedings 4th international Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fullam, K. K., Klos, T. B., Muller, G., Sabater, J., Schlosser, A., Topol, Z., Barber, K. S., Rosenschein, J. S., Vercouter, L., and Voss, M.: A specification of the Agent Reputation and Trust (ART) testbed: experimentation and competition for trust in agent societies. In: Proceedings 4th international Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Netherlands, (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., and Halberstadt, A.: Notions of reputation in multi-agents systems: a review. In: Proceedings 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Bologna, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rivest, R. L., Shamir, A., and Adleman, L.: A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Commun. ACM 26, 1 (Jan. 1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bovespa: Bolsa de Valores de São Paulo,
  16. 16.
    Branagan, J. Ippolito, K. Musgrave, and Waggenspack W.: Pretty good privacy. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 96 Visual Proceedings: the Art and interdisciplinary Programs of SIGGRAPH ′96, New Orleans, United States, (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanderson Botêlho
    • 1
  • Fabríco Enembreck
    • 1
  • Bráulio C. ávila
    • 1
  • Hilton de Azevedo
    • 2
  • Edson E. Scalabrin
    • 1
  1. 1.PUCPR, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná PPGIA, Graduate Program on Applied Computer ScienceCuritibaBrazil
  2. 2.UTFPR, Federal Technological University of Paraná PPGTE, Graduate Program on TechnologyCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations