Nathan Griffiths
ABSTRACT
Cooperation among autonomous agents involves an inherent degree of uncertainty. Agents determine for themselves when to initiate cooperation or to assist others, when to rescind commitments, and how to conduct cooperative tasks. For example, an agent may delay the execution of a cooperative task, execute it to a reduced quality, or simply fail to complete it. In this paper, we describe how experience-based trust can be used to minimise the risk associated with cooperation. In particular we propose a mechanism, called multi-dimensional trust, which allows agents to model the trustworthiness of others according to various criteria. This trust information is combined with other factors to enable the selection of cooperative partners. Agents' preferences are represented by a set of factor weightings, which allow trust information to be tailored to the current cooperative priorities. We also describe the experimental validation of our proposed approach.
- A. Abdul-Rahman and S. Hailes. Supporting trust in virtual communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2000. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- F. Azzedin and M. Maheswaran. Integrating trust into Grid resource management systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing, pages 47--54, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. W. Bridgeman. Dimensional Analysis. Yale University Press, 1922.Google Scholar
- R. Buyya and M. Murshed. GridSim: A toolkit for the modelling and simulation of distributed resource management and scheduling for Grid computing. Journal of Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 14(13--15):1--32, 2002.Google Scholar
- C. Castelfranchi. Trust mediation in knowledge management and sharing. In C. Jensen, S. Poslad, and T. Dimitrakos, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Trust Management (iTrust 2004), pages 304--318, 2004.Google Scholar
- C. Castelfranchi and R. Falcone. Principles of trust for MAS: Cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-98), pages 72--79, Paris, France, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. R. D. Dyson, N. Griffiths, H. N. Lim Choi Jeung, S. A. Jarvis, and G. R. Nudd. Trusting agents for Grid computing. In Proceedings of the IEEE SMC 2004 International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pages 3187--3192, 2004.Google Scholar
- R. Falcone and C. Castelfranchi. Social trust: A cognitive approach. In C. Castelfranchi and Y.-H. Tan, editors, Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, pages 55--90. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Gambetta. Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta, editor, Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pages 213--237. Basil Blackwell, 1988.Google Scholar
- N. Griffiths and M. Luck. Coalition formation through motivation and trust. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-03), pages 17--24, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. D. Huynh, N. R. Jennings, and S. Shadbolt. Developing an integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies, pages 65--74, 2004.Google Scholar
- S. Marsh. Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. PhD thesis. University of Stirling. 1994.Google Scholar
- S. Marsh. Optimism and pessimism in trust. In Proceedings of the Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA-94), 1994.Google Scholar
- S. Marsh. Trust in distributed artificial intelligence. In C. Castelfranchi and E. Werner, editors, Artificial Social Systems, pages 94--112. Springer-Verlag, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. D. Ramchurn, C. Sierra. L. Godo, and N. R. Jennings. A computational trust model for multi-agent interactions based on confidence and reputation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop of Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pages 69--75, 2003.Google Scholar
- J. Sabater and C. Sierra. REGRET: A reputation model for gregarious societies. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents in Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-02), pages 475--482, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Triantaphyllou. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Yu and S. M. P. An evidential model of reputation management. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents in Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-02), pages 295--300, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Task delegation using experience-based multi-dimensional trust
Recommendations
Empirical Analysis of Reputation-aware Task Delegation by Humans from a Multi-agent Game
AAMAS '15: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent SystemsWhat are the strategies people adopt when deciding how to delegated tasks to agents when the agents' reputation and productivity information is available? How effective are these strategies under different conditions? These questions are important since ...
Coalition formation through motivation and trust
AAMAS '03: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systemsCooperation is the fundamental underpinning of multi-agent systems, allowing agents to interact to achieve their goals. Where agents are self-interested, or potentially unreliable, there must be appropriate mechanisms to cope with the uncertainty that ...
Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: An empirical study of mobile banking services
The factors affecting rejection or acceptance of an emerging IT artifact such as mobile banking have piqued interest among IS researchers and remain unknown due in part to consumers' trust and risk perceptions in the wireless platform. This study ...
Comments