Bin Yu
Munindar P. Singh
ABSTRACT
For agents to function effectively in large and open networks, they must ensure that their correspondents, i.e., the agents they interact with, are trustworthy. Since no central authorities may exist, the only way agents can find trustworthy correspondents is by collaborating with others to identify those whose past behavior has been untrustworthy. In other words, finding trustworthy correspondents reduces to the problem of distributed reputation management.Our approach adapts the mathematical theory of evidence to represent and propagate the ratings that agents give to their correspondents. When evaluating the trustworthiness of a correspondent, an agent combines its local evidence (based on direct prior interactions with the correspondent) with the testimonies of other agents regarding the same correspondent. We experimentally studied this approach to establish that some important properties of trust are captured by it.
- A. Abdul-Rahman and S. Hailes. Supporting trust in virtual communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, 2000. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- K. Aberer and Z. Despotovic. Managing trust in a peer-2-peer information system. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pages 310--317, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Axelrod. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, 1984.Google Scholar
- K. S. Barber and J. Kim. Belief revision process based on trust: Simulation experiments. In Proceedings of Autonomous Agents '01 Workshop on Deception, Fraud, and Trust in Agent Societies, pages 1--12, May 2001.Google Scholar
- R. Boyd and J. P. Borderbaum. No pure strategy is evolutionary stable in the repeated prisoner's dilemma game. Nature, 327:58--59, 1987.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Castelfranchi. Modelling social action for AI agents. Artificial Intelligence, 103:157--182, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Castelfranchi and R. Falcone. Principle of trust for MAS: cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, pages 72--79, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Chavez and P. Maes. Kasbah: An agent marketplace for buying and selling goods. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multiagent Technology (PAAM), pages 75--90, 1996.Google Scholar
- L. Foner. Yenta: A multi-agent, referral-based matchmaking system. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 301--307, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Gasser. Social conceptions of knowledge and action: DAI foundations and open systems semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 47:107--138, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Gordon and E. H. Shortliffe. A method for managing evidential reasoning in a hierarchical hypothesis space. Artificial Intelligence, 26:323--357, 1985. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Heckerman. Probabilistic interpretations for MYCIN's certainty factors. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 167--196, 1986.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Kautz, B. Selman, and A. Milewski. Agent amplified communication. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3--9, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Khare and A. Rifkin. Weaving a web of trust. World Wide Web, 2(3):77--112, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. E. Kyburg. Bayesian and non-bayesian evidential updating. Artificial Intelligence, 31:271--293, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. P. Marsh. Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. PhD thesis, Department of Computing Science and Mathematics, University of Stirling, Apr. 1994.Google Scholar
- J. Pearl. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Network of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Mateo, California, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Prietula and K. M. Carley. Exploring the effects of agent trust and benevolence in a simulated organization task. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13:321--338, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Rea and P. Skevington. Engendering trust in electronic commerce. British Telecommunications Engineering, 17(3):150--157, 1998.Google Scholar
- M. Schillo and P. Funk. Who can you trust: Dealing with deception. In Proceedings of the Autonomous Agents Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pages 95--106, 1999.Google Scholar
- M. Schillo, P. Funk, and M. Rovatsos. Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societies. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 14:825--848, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Shafer. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1976.Google Scholar
- S. P. Shapiro. The social control of impersonal trust. The American Journal of Sociology, 93(3):623--658, 1987.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. P. Singh, B. Yu, and M. Venkatraman. Community-based service location. Communications of the ACM, 44(4):49--54, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz. Collective dynamics of `small-world' networks. Nature, 393:440--442, June 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Yu and M. P. Singh. A social mechanism of reputation management in electronic communities. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, pages 154--165, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Yu and M. P. Singh. Trust and reputation management in a small-world network. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, pages 449--450, 2000. Poster. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Zacharia and P. Maes. Trust management through reputation mechanisms. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 14:881--908, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- An evidential model of distributed reputation management
Recommendations
Detecting deception in reputation management
AAMAS '03: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systemsWe previously developed a social mechanism for distributed reputation management, in which an agent combines testimonies from several witnesses to determine its ratings of another agent. However, that approach does not fully protect against spurious ...
A Distributed Trust-based Reputation Model in P2P System
SNPD '07: Proceedings of the Eighth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing - Volume 01The P2P system is an anonymous and dynamic system, thus, some malicious behaviour can't be punished. In order to restrict the malicious behaviour in the P2P system, researchers have focused on establishing effective reputation systems. However, the ...
Scalable reputation management with trustworthy user selection for P2P MMOGs
Recent research on Peer-to-Peer Massively Multiplayer Online Games (P2P MMOGs) has tried to find more scalable and affordable solutions to build virtual environments via the resource sharing of clients. However, P2P approaches face the problem of client ...
Comments