Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reputation-based decisions for logic-based cognitive agents

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computational trust and reputation models have been recognized as one of the key technologies required to design and implement agent systems. These models manage and aggregate the information needed by agents to efficiently perform partner selection in uncertain situations. For simple applications, a game theoretical approach similar to that used in most models can suffice. However, if we want to undertake problems found in socially complex virtual societies, we need more sophisticated trust and reputation systems. In this context, reputation-based decisions that agents make take on special relevance and can be as important as the reputation model itself. In this paper, we propose a possible integration of a cognitive reputation model, Repage, into a cognitive BDI agent. First, we specify a belief logic capable to capture the semantics of Repage information, which encodes probabilities. This logic is defined by means of a two first-order languages hierarchy, allowing the specification of axioms as first-order theories. The belief logic integrates the information coming from Repage in terms if image and reputation, and combines them, defining a typology of agents depending of such combination. We use this logic to build a complete graded BDI model specified as a multi-context system where beliefs, desires, intentions and plans interact among each other to perform a BDI reasoning. We conclude the paper with an example and a related work section that compares our approach with current state-of-the-art models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abdul-Rahman, A., & Hailes, S. (2000). Supporting trust in virtual communities. In Proceedings of the Hawaii’s international conference on systems sciences, Maui, Hawaii.

  2. Bordini R. H., Hnbner J. F., Wooldridge M. (2007) Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Carbo, J., Molina, J., & Davila, J. (2002). Comparing predictions of sporas vs. a fuzzy reputation agent system. In 3rd International conference on fuzzy sets and fuzzy systems, Interlaken (pp. 147–153).

  4. Carbo J., Molina J., Davila J. (2002) Trust management through fuzzy reputation. International Journal in Cooperative Information Systems 12(1): 135–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Casali, A. (2008). On intentional and social agents with graded attitudes. PhD thesis, Universitat de Girona.

  6. Casali, A., Godo, L., & Sierra, C. (2004). Graded models for BDI agents. In J. Leite & P. Torroni (Eds.), CLIMA V, Lisboa, Portugal (pp. 18–33).

  7. Casali, A., Godo, L., & Sierra, C. (2008). A logical framework to represent and reason about graded preferences and intentions. In Proceedings of KR’08, Sydney, Australia.

  8. Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (1998). Social trust. In Proceedings of the first workshop on deception, fraud and trust in agent societies, Minneapolis, USA (pp. 35–49).

  9. Conte R., Paolucci M. (2002) Reputation in artificial societies: Social beliefs for social order. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  10. Demolombe, R., & Liau, C. (2001). A logic of graded trust and belief fusion. In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on deception, fraud and trust in agent societies (pp. 13–25).

  11. eBay. (2002). eBay. http://www.eBay.com.

  12. Enderton H. B. (1972) A mathematical introduction to logic. Academic Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Fagin R., Halpern J. (1994) Reasoning about knowledge and probability. Journal of the ACM 41(2): 340–367

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Flaminio T., Pinna G. M., Tiezzi E. B. P. (2008) A complete fuzzy logical system to deal with trust management systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 159(10): 1191–1207

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. ForTrust. (2009). ForTrust: Social trust analysis and formalization. http://www.irit.fr/ForTrust/.

  16. Gaertner, D., Noriega, P., & Sierra, C. (2006). Extending the BDI architecture with commitments. In Proceedings of the CCIA’06 (pp. 247–257).

  17. Giunchiglia F., Serafini L. (1994) Multilanguage hierarchical logic (or: How we can do without modal logics). Journal of AI 65: 29–70

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Grabisch, M., Orlovski, S. A., & Yager, R. R. (1998). Fuzzy aggregation of numerical preferences. In Fuzzy sets in decision analysis, operations research and statistics (pp. 31–68).

  19. Grant J., Kraus S., Perlis D. (2000) A logic for characterizing multiple bounded agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(4): 351–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hájek, P., Godo, L., & Esteva, F. (1995). Fuzzy logic and probability. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence conference (pp. 237–244).

  21. Herzig A., Lorini E., Hubner J. F., Vercouter L. (2010) A logic of trust and reputation. Logic Journal of the IGPL 18(1): 214–244

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Huynh T., Jennings N., Shadbolt N. (2006) An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 13(2): 119–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Joseph, S., Dellunde, P., Schorlemmer, M., & Sierra, C. (2008). Formalizing deductive coherence: An application to norm evaluation. In NORMAS (pp. 158–172).

  24. Kooi B. P. (2003) Probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12(4): 381–408

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Kozen, D. (1983). A probabilistic PDL. In STOC ’83: Proceedings of the fifteenth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, New York, NY, USA (pp. 291–297). ACM.

  26. Liau C. J. (2003) Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems: A modal logic formulation. Artificial Intelligence 149(1): 31–60

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Lorini E., Demolombe R. (2008) From binary trust to graded trust in information sources: A logical perspective. In: Barber S., Falcone R., Sabater-Mir J., Singh M. (eds) Trust in agent societies, volume 5396 of LNAI. Springer, New York, pp 205–225

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Luck, M., McBurney, P., Shehory, O., & Willmott, S. (2005). Agent technology: Computing as interaction (A roadmap for agent based computing). AgentLink.

  29. Marsh, S. (1994). Formalising trust as a computational concept. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Stirling.

  30. Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2000). The role of evaluation in cognition and social interaction. In Human cognition and social agent technology (pp. 225–259). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  31. Muller, G., & Vercouter, L. (2005). Decentralized monitoring of agent communications with a reputation model. In R. Falcone, K. S. Barber, J. Sabater-Mir, & M. P. Singh (Eds.), Trusting agents for trusting electronic societies, theory and applications in HCI and E-commerce, volume 3577 of Lecture notes in computer science. New York: Springer.

  32. Parsons S., Sierra C., Jennings N. (1998) Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3): 261–292

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Pinyol, I., and Sabater-Mir, J. (2009). Pragmatic–strategic reputation-based decisions in BDI agents. In Proceedings of the AAMAS’09, Budapest, Hungary (pp. 1001–1008).

  34. Pinyol, I., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2010). Metareasoning and social evaluations in cognitive agents. In Autonomic computing and communications systems, volume 23 of LNISCT (pp. 220–235). Berlin: Springer.

  35. Pinyol, I., Sabater-Mir, J., & Cuni, G. (2007). How to talk about reputation using a common ontology: From definition to implementation. In Proceedings of the ninth workshop on trust in agent societies, Hawaii, USA (pp. 90–101).

  36. Pinyol, I., Sabater-Mir, J., & Dellunde, P. (2008). Probabilistic dynamic belief logic for image and reputation. In Proceedings of the CCIA’08, Empuries, Spain.

  37. Rao A.S., Georgeff M.P. (1991) Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Allen J., Fikes R., Sandewall E. (eds) Proceedings of KR’91. San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp 473–484

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sabater-Mir, J. (2003). Trust and reputation for agent societies. PhD thesis, IIIA-CSIC, Barcelona, Spain.

  39. Sabater-Mir J., Paolucci M. (2007) On representation and aggregation of social evaluations in computational trust and reputation models. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 46(3): 458–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sabater-Mir, J., Paolucci, M., & Conte, R. (2006). Repage: Reputation and image among limited autonomous partners. JASSS, 9(2).

  41. Sabater, J., & Sierra, C. (2001). Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies. In Proceedings of the fourth workshop on deception, fraud and trust in agent societies, Montreal, Canada (pp. 61–69).

  42. Sabater, J., & Sierra, C. (2002). Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of AAMAS-02, Bologna, Italy (pp. 475–482).

  43. Sabater J., Sierra C. (2005) Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artificial Intelligence Review 24(1): 33–60

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Sabater-Mir J., Sierra C., Parsons S., Jennings N. R. (2002) Engineering executable agents using multi-context systems. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(3): 413–442

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Schillo, M., Funk, P., & Rovatsos, M. (2000). Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societies. Applied Artificial Intelligence (Special issue on trust, deception and fraud in agent societies).

  46. Sen, S., & Sajja, N. (2002). Robustness of reputation-based trust: Boolean case. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS-02), Bologna, Italy (pp. 288–293).

  47. Yu, B., & Singh, M. P. (2001). Towards a probabilistic model of distributed reputation management. In Proceedings of the fourth workshop on deception, fraud and trust in agent societies, Montreal, Canada (pp. 125–137).

  48. Yu, B., & Singh, M. P. (2003). Detecting deception in reputation management. In AAMAS ’03: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 73–80). New York: ACM Press.

  49. Zacharia, G. (1999, September). Collaborative reputation mechanisms for online communities. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IIIA—Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, CSIC—Spanish Scientific Research Council, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

    Isaac Pinyol, Jordi Sabater-Mir & Pilar Dellunde

  2. Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

    Pilar Dellunde

  3. ISTC—Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologie, CNR—National Research Council, Rome, Italy

    Mario Paolucci

Authors
  1. Isaac Pinyol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jordi Sabater-Mir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pilar Dellunde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mario Paolucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isaac Pinyol.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pinyol, I., Sabater-Mir, J., Dellunde, P. et al. Reputation-based decisions for logic-based cognitive agents. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 24, 175–216 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9149-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9149-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation