Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T04:03:39.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the integration of trust with negotiation, argumentation and semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2013

Piero Bonatti ,
Eugenio Oliveira ,
Jordi Sabater-Mir ,
Carles Sierra  and
Francesca Toni
Piero Bonatti
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e Tecnologie dell'Informazione, Universitá di Napoli Federico II, Via Claudio 21, I-80125 Napoli, Italy; e-mail: bonatti@na.infn.it
Eugenio Oliveira
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science (DEI), Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal; e-mail: eco@fe.up.pt
Jordi Sabater-Mir
Affiliation:
Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA) of the Spanish Research Council (CSIC), Campus UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola, Catalonia, Spain; e-mail: jsabater@iiia.csic.es, sierra@iiia.csic.es
Carles Sierra
Affiliation:
Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA) of the Spanish Research Council (CSIC), Campus UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola, Catalonia, Spain; e-mail: jsabater@iiia.csic.es, sierra@iiia.csic.es
Francesca Toni
Affiliation:
Department of Computing, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK; e-mail: ft@imperial.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agreement Technologies are needed for autonomous agents to come to mutually acceptable agreements, typically on behalf of humans. These technologies include trust computing, negotiation, argumentation and semantic alignment. In this paper, we identify a number of open questions regarding the integration of computational models and tools for trust computing with negotiation, argumentation and semantic alignment. We consider these questions in general and in the context of applications in open, distributed settings such as the grid and cloud computing.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 31 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Argente, E., Criado, N., Julián, V., Botti, V. J. 2008. Designing norms in virtual organizations. In Artificial Intelligence Research and Development, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Catalan Association for Artificial Intelligence, CCIA 2008, October 22–24, 2008, Sant Mart d'Empúries, Spain, volume 184 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Alsinet, T., Puyol-Gruart, J. & Torras, C. (eds). IOS Press, 16–23.Google Scholar
Baselice, S., Bonatti, P. A., Faella, M. 2007. On interoperable trust negotiation strategies. In POLICY, Agrawal, D., Bertino, E. & Kagal, L. (eds). IEEE Computer Society, 39–50.Google Scholar
Besnard, P., Hunter, A. 2008. Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonatti, P. A., De Coi, J. L., Olmedilla, D., Sauro, L. 2009. Rule-based policy representations and reasoning. In REWERSE, Bry, F. & Maluszynski, J. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5500, 201–232. Springer.Google Scholar
Bonatti, P. A., De Coi, J. L., Olmedilla, D., Sauro, L. 2010. A rule-based trust negotiation system. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 22(11), 1507–1520.Google Scholar
Bonatti, P. A., Faella, M., Galdi, C., Sauro, L. 2011. Towards a mechanism for incentivating privacy. In Proceedings of the Computer Security – ESORICS 2011 – 16th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, Leuven, Belgium, September 12–14, 2011, Atluri V. & Díaz C. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6879, 472–488. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonatti, P. A., Olmedilla, D. 2005. Driving and monitoring provisional trust negotiation with metapolicies. In POLICY, Winsborough, W. & Sahai, A. (eds). IEEE Computer Society, 14–23.Google Scholar
Bonatti, P. A., Samarati, P. 2003. Logics for authorizations and security. In Logics for Emerging Applications of Databases, Chomicki, J., van der Meyden, R. & Saake, G. (eds). Springer, 277–323.Google Scholar
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Silveri, I., Afsarmanesh, I. H., Oliveira, A. 2005. Towards a framework for creation of dynamic virtual organizations. In Collaborative Networks and their Breeding Environments, Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H. & Ortiz, A. (eds). Springer, 69–80.Google Scholar
Cardoso, H. L., Oliveira, E. 2005. Virtual enterprise normative framework within electronic institutions. In Engineering Societies in the Agents World V, Omicini, A., Gleizes, M. P. & Zambonelli, F. (eds), Springer, 14–32.Google Scholar
Cardoso, H. L., Oliveira, E. 2008a. Norm defeasibility in an institutional normative framework. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2008), Ghallab, M., Spyropoulos, C., Fakotakis, N. & Avouris, N. (eds), IOS Press, 468–472.Google Scholar
Cardoso, H. L., Oliveira, E. 2008b. A context-based institutional normative environment. In Proceedings of The AAMAS08 Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems (COIN), Hubner, J., Matson, E., Boissier, E., & Dignum, V. (eds), Springer, 119–133.Google Scholar
Casare, S. J., Sichman, J. S. 2005. Towards a functional ontology of reputation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, 505–511. Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R. 2000. Trust is much more than subjective probability: mental components and sources of trust. In 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-33), 4–7 January, 2000, Maui, Hawaii, Track 6: Internet and the Digital Economy. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Choi, N., Song, I.-Y., Han, H. 2006. A survey on ontology mapping. SIGMOD Record 35(3), 34–41.Google Scholar
Colomer, J. M. 2011. Social Choice Theory, International Encyclopedia of Political Science edition. Sage.Google Scholar
Conte, R., Paolucci, M. 2002. Reputation in Artificial Societies: Social Beliefs for Social Order. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Craswell, R. 2000. Contract law: general theories. In Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Volume III: The Regulation of Contracts, Bouckaert, B. & De Geest, G. (eds). Edward Elgar, 1–24.Google Scholar
Debenham, J., Sierra, C. 2006. Trust and honour in information-based agency. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, AAMAS 2006, 1225–1232. Hakodate, Japan.Google Scholar
Dondio, P., Barrett, S. 2007. Presumptive selection of trust evidences. In 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 14–18, 2007, Durfee, E. H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M. N. & Shehory, O. (eds). IFAAMAS, 1078–1085.Google Scholar
Dung, P. M., Thang, P. M. 2009. Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17(3), 167–182.Google Scholar
Fabregues, A., Sierra, C. 2009. A Testbed for Multiagent Systems. Technical report, IIIA-CSIC.Google Scholar
Fidora, A., Sierra, C. (eds). 2011. Ramon Llull: From the Ars Magna to Artificial Intelligence. IIIA-CSIC.Google Scholar
Fullam, K. K., Klos, T. B., Muller, G., Sabater, J., Schlosser, A., Topol, Z., Barber, K. S., Rosenschein, J. S., Vercouter, L., Voss, M. 2005. A specification of the agent reputation and trust (art) testbed: experimentation and competition for trust in agent societies. In Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2005), 512–518. Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Golbeck, J. 2009. Trust and nuanced profile similarity in online social networks. ACM Transactions on the Web 3(4), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, L., Ellison, G. 2003. Inside Java(TM) 2 Platform Security: Architecture, API Design, and Implementation, 2nd edn.Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Grabowski, M., Roberts, K. H. 1999. Risk mitigation in virtual organizations. Organization Science 10(6), 704–721.Google Scholar
Heras, S., Criado, N., Argente, E., Julian, V. 2009. Norm emergency through argumentation. Journal of Physical Agents 3, 31–38.Google Scholar
Hogan, A., Harth, A., Polleres, A. 2009. Scalable authoritative OWL reasoning for the web. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 5(2), 49–90.Google Scholar
Huynh, T. D., Jennings, N. R., Shadbolt, N. R. 2006. An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 13(2), 119–154.Google Scholar
Jajodia, S., Samarati, P., Sapino, M. L., Subrahmanian, V. S. 2001. Flexible support for multiple access control policies. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 26(2), 214–260.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L. 2000. General characteristics of rules. In Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, V: The Economics of Crime and Litigation, Bouckaert, B. & De Geest, G. (eds). Edward Elgar, 502–528.Google Scholar
Karlins, M., Abelson, H. I. 1970. Persuasion. Crosby Lockwood & Son.Google Scholar
Koster, A., Sabater-Mir, J., Schorlemmer, M. 2010. Inductively generated trust alignments based on shared interactions. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J. 1995. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacomme, L., Demazeau, Y., Camps, V. 2009. Personalization of a trust network. In Agents and Artificial Intelligence, Filipe, J., Fred, A. & Sharp, B. (eds), Communications in Computer and Information Science, Springer, 247–259.Google Scholar
Lee, A. J., Winslett, M. 2006. Virtual fingerprinting as a foundation for reputation in open systems. In iTrust, Stølen, K., Winsborough, W. H., Martinelli, F. & Massacci F. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3986, 236–251. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenzini, G., Sahli, N., Eertink, H. 2008. Agents selecting trustworthy recommendations in mobile virtual communities. In AAMAS-TRUST, Falcone, R., Suzanne Barber, K., Sabater-Mir, J. & Singh, M. P. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5396, Springer, 182–204.Google Scholar
Luck, M., Munroe, S., Ashri, R., López y López, F. 2004. Trust and norms for interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man & Cybernetics. IEEE, 1944–1949.Google Scholar
Matt, P.-A., Morge, M., Toni, F. 2010. Combining statistics and arguments to compute trust. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010), van der Hoek, W. & Kaminka, G. A. (eds). IFAAMAS, Toronto, Canada, 209–216.Google Scholar
Matt, P.-A., Toni, F., Stournaras, T., Dimitrelos, D. 2008. Argumentation-based agents for e-procurement. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Estoril, Portugal.Google Scholar
McGinnis, J., Stathis, K., Toni, F. 2011. A formal model of agent-oriented virtual organisations and their formation. Multiagent and Grid Systems 7(6), 291–310.Google Scholar
Melaye, D., Demazeau, Y. 2005. Bayesian dynamic trust model. In Pechoucek, M., Petta, P. & Varga, L. (eds). Multi-Agent Systems and Applications IV, LNCS, 3690, 480–489. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, S., Groth, P., Munroe, S., Moreau, L. 2009a. PrIMe: a methodology for developing provenance-aware applications. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 20(3), 1–42.Google Scholar
Miles, S., Groth, P., Oren, N., Luck, M. 2009b. Handling mitigating circumstances for electronic contracts. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, Ayia Napa, Cyprus.Google Scholar
Moreau, L., Clifford, B., Freire, J., Futrelle, J., Gil, Y., Groth, P., Kwasnikowska, N., Miles, S., Missier, P., Myers, J., Plale, B., Simmhan, Y., Stephan, E., Van den Bussche, J. 2011. The open provenance model core specification (v1.1). Future Generation Computer Systems 27(6), 743–756.Google Scholar
Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., Halberstadt, A. 2002. A computational model for trust and reputation. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA.Google Scholar
Noy, N. F. 2004. Semantic integration: a survey of ontology-based approaches. SIGMOD Record 33(4), 65–70.Google Scholar
Ossowski, S. 2008a. Coordination and agreement in multi-agent systems. In Cooperative Information Agents XII, 12th International Workshop, CIA 2008, Prague, Czech Republic, September 10–12, 2008, Proceedings, Klusch, M., Pechoucek, M. & Polleres, A., (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5180, 16–23. Springer.Google Scholar
Ossowski, S. 2008b. Coordination in multi-agent systems: towards a technology of agreement. In Multiagent System Technologies, 6th German Conference, MATES 2008, Kaiserslautern, Germany, September 23–26, 2008, Proceedings, Bergmann, R., Lindemann, G., Kirn, S. & Pechoucek, M. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5244, 2–12. Springer.Google Scholar
Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Sklar, E. 2010. Reasoning about trust using argumentation: a position paper. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2010), affiliated to AAMAS 2010, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Pinyol, I., Sabater-Mir, J. 2009. Towards the de_nition of an argumentation framework using repu-tation information. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies (TRUST@AAMAS'09), Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
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, 90–102, Hawaii, USA.Google Scholar
Poblet, M. (ed.) 2008. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution, in conjunction with the 21st International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2008), December 13, 2008, Firenze, Italy, volume 430 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Prade, H., Subrahmanian, V. S. 2007. A qualitative bipolar argumentative view of trust. In Scalable Uncertainty Management, First International Conference, SUM 2007, October 10–12, 2007, Washington, DC, USA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4772, 268–276.Google Scholar
Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L. 2003. Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4), 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (ed.). 2009. Argumentation in AI: The Book. Springer.Google Scholar
Regan, K., Cohen, R. 2005. Indirect reputation assessment for adaptive buying agents in electronic markets. Business Agents and the Semantic Web Workshop 1, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 121–130.Google Scholar
Sabater, J., Sierra, C. 2005. Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artificial Intelligence Review 24(1), 33–60.Google Scholar
Sadeh, N. M., Hong, J. I., Cranor, L. F., Fette, I., Kelley, P. G., Prabaker, M. K., Rao, J. 2009. Under-standing and capturing people's privacy policies in a mobile social networking application. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 13(6), 401–412.Google Scholar
Sierra, C., Debenham, J. 2007. The logic negotiation model. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 1026–1033, Haway, USA.Google Scholar
Sierra, C., Debenham, J. 2008. Information-based argumentation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Workshop on Knowledge Representation for Agents and Multiagent Systems (KRAMAS 2008), Meyer, J.-J. Ch. & Broersen, J. (eds), 155–170.Google Scholar
Sierra, C., Debenham, J. 2009. Information-based reputation. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Reputation: Theory and Technology, 5–19, Gargonza, Italy.Google Scholar
Sierra, C., Sabater-Mir, J. 2005. Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artificial Intelligence Review 24(1), 33–60.Google Scholar
Staab, S., Bhargava, B. K., Lilien, L., Rosenthal, A., Winslett, M., Sloman, M., Dillon, T. S., Chang, E., Hussain, F. K., Nejdl, W., Olmedilla, D., Kashyap, V. 2004. The pudding of trust. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19(5), 74–88.Google Scholar
Staab, E., Engel, T. 2008. Combining cognitive with computational trust reasoning. In Trust in Agent Societies, 11th International Workshop, TRUST 2008, May 12–13, 2008, Falcone, R., Barber, K. S., Sabater-Mir, J. & Singh, M. P. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5396, Springer.Google Scholar
Stanoevska, K., Parrilli, D. M., Thanos, G. 2008. BEinGRID: development of business models for the grid industry. In Grid Economics and Business Models. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5206, 140–151, Springer.Google Scholar
Tavakolifard, M., Herrmann, P., Ozturk, P. 2009. Analogical trust reasoning. In Trust Management III, Ferrari, E., Li, N., Bertino, E. & Karabulut, Y. (eds). Springer, 149–163.Google Scholar
Urbano, J., Rocha, A. P., Oliveira, E. 2009. Computing confidence values: Does trust dynamics matter? In Lopes L. S., Mariano P., Lau N. & Rocha L. M. (eds). Progress in Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5816, Springer, 520–531.Google Scholar
Urbano, J., Cardoso, H. L., Oliveira, E. 2010a. Making electronic contracting operational and trustworthy. In Advances in Artificial Intelligence – Proceedings of the 12th Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IBERAMIA 2010), Kuri-Morales, A. & Simari, G. R. (eds). Springer, 264–273.Google Scholar
Urbano, J., Rocha, A., Oliveira, E. 2010b. Trust estimation using contextual fitness. In Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications, Jedrzejowicz, P., Nguyen, N., Howlett, R. & Jain, L. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6070, 42–51. Springer.Google Scholar
Urbano, J., Rocha, A. P., Oliveira, E. 2010c. Trustworthiness tendency incremental extraction using information gain. In Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), 2010, IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference, 2, 411–414.Google Scholar
Urbano, J., Rocha, A. P., Oliveira, E. 2011. Extracting trustworthiness tendencies using the frequency increase metric. In Enterprise Information Systems, Aalst, W., Mylopoulos, J., Rosemann, M., Shaw, M. J., Szyperski, C., Filipe, J. & Cordeiro, J. (eds). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 73, 208–221. Springer.Google Scholar
Winslett, M., Yu, T., Seamons, K. E., Hess, A., Jacobson, J., Jarvis, R., Smith, B., Yu, L. 2002. Negotiating trust on the web. IEEE Internet Computing 6(6), 30–37.Google Scholar
Young, J. 2008. Trust in virtual organisations: a synthesis of the literature. IJNVO 5(3/4), 244–258.Google Scholar
Yu, B., Singh, M. P. 2002. Distributed reputation management for electronic commerce. Computational Intelligence 18(4), 535–549.Google Scholar
Yu, T., Winslett, M., Seamons, K. E. 2001. Interoperable strategies in automated trust negotiation. In CCS '01: Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Computer and Communications Security, Reiter, M. K. & Samarati, P. (eds). ACM Press, 146–155.Google Scholar
Yu, T., Winslett, M., Seamons, K. 2003. Supporting structured credentials and sensitive policies through interoperable strategies in automated trust negotiation. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 6(1), 1–42.Google Scholar
Zeleznikow, J. 2008. Beyond interest based bargaining – incorporating interests and fairness in the development of negotiation support systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution, in conjunction with the 21st International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2008), Firenze, Italy, December 13, 2008, volume 430 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Poblet M. (ed.). CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar