Advertisement

Dealing with Trust and Reputation in Unreliable Multi-agent Trading Environments

  • Iraklis Tsekourakis
  • Andreas L. Symeonidis
Conference paper
  • 426 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 119)

Abstract

In shared competitive environments, where information comes from various sources, agents may interact with each other in a competitive manner in order to achieve their individual goals. Numerous research efforts exist, attempting to define protocols, rules and interfaces for agents to abide by and ensure trustworthy exchange of information. Auction environments and e-commerce platforms are such paradigms, where trust and reputation are vital factors determining agent strategy. And though the process is always secured with a number of safeguards, there is always the issue of unreliability. In this context, the Agent Reputation and Trust (ART) testbed has provided researchers with the ability to test different trust and reputation strategies, in various types of trust/reputation environments. Current work attempts to identify the most viable trust and reputation models stated in the literature, while it further elaborates on the issue by proposing a robust trust and reputation mechanism. This mechanism is incorporated in our agent, HerculAgent, and tested in a variety of environments against the top performing agents of the ART competition. The paper provides a thorough analysis of ART, presents HerculAgent s architecture and dis-cuss its performance.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Simon, H.A.: The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramchurn, S.D., Huynh, D., Jennings, N.R.: Trust in multi-agent systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 19, 1–25 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang, H., Zhu, G., Jin, S.: Revisiting trust and reputation in multi-agent systems. In: ISECS International Colloquium on Computing, Communication, Control and Management, vol. 1, pp. 424–429 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramchurn, S.D., Sierra, C., Godo, 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
  5. 5.
    Gómez, M., Carbó, J., Benac-Earle, C.: An Anticipatory Trust Model for Open Distributed Systems. In: Butz, M.V., Sigaud, O., Pezzulo, G., Baldassarre, G. (eds.) ABiALS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4520, pp. 307–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fullam, K.K., Barber, K.S.: Learning trust strategies in reputation exchange networks. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2006, pp. 1241–1248. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Part 1, AAMAS 2002, pp. 475–482. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fullam, K.K., Klos, T.B., Muller, G., Sabater, J., Schlosser, A., Topol, Z., Barber, K.S., Rosenschein, J.S., Vercouter, L., Voss, M.: A specification of the agent reputation and trust (art) testbed: Experimentation and competition for trust in agent societies. In: The Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 512–518 (July 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fullam, K.K.: An expressive belief revision framework based on information valuation. Master’s thesis, Dept. of EE, U. Texas (Austin) (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fullam, K.K., Barber, K.S.: A Temporal Policy for Trusting Information. In: Falcone, R., Barber, S.K., Sabater-Mir, J., Singh, M.P. (eds.) Trusting Agents. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3577, pp. 75–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ding, L., Kolari, P., Ganjugunte, S., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: Modeling and Evaluating Trust Network Inference. In: Seventh International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies at AAMAS 2004 (July 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muller, G., Vercouter, L., Boissier, O.: Towards a general definition of trust and its application to openness in MAS. In: Falcone, R., Barber, K., Korba, L., Singh, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies at Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 49–56 (July 2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ART testbed website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
  14. 14.
    Fullam, K.K., Klos, T., Muller, G., Sabater-Mir, J., Barber, K.S., Vercouter, L.: The Agent Reputation and Trust (ART) Testbed. In: Stølen, K., Winsborough, W.H., Martinelli, F., Massacci, F. (eds.) iTrust 2006. LNCS, vol. 3986, pp. 439–442. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kafalı, Ö., Yolum, P.: Trust strategies for ART Testbed. In: Ninth International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies, AAMAS, pp. 43–49 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    da Costa, A.D., de Lucena, C.J.P., da Silva, V.T., Azevedo, S.C., Soares, F.A.: Computing reputation in the art context: Agent design to handle negotiation challenges (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muñoz, V., Murillo, J.: Agent uno: Winner in the 2nd spanish art competition. Inteligencia Artificial, Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial 12(39), 19–27 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teacy, W.T.L., Huynh, T.D., Dash, R.K., Jennings, N.R., Patel, J., Luck, M.: The art of iam: The winning strategy for the 2006 competition (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iraklis Tsekourakis
    • 1
  • Andreas L. Symeonidis
    • 1
  1. 1.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations