Paper Info
Title
Arguing about social evaluations: From theory to experimentation
Abstract
In open multiagent systems, agents depend on reputation and trust mechanisms to evaluate the behavior of potential partners. Often these evaluations are associated with a measure of reliability that the source agent computes. However, due to the subjectivity of reputation-related information, this can lead to serious problems when considering communicated social evaluations. In this paper, instead of considering only reliability measures computed from the sources, we provide a mechanism that allows the recipient decide whether the piece of information is reliable according to its own knowledge. We do it by allowing the agents engage in an argumentation-based dialog specifically designed for the exchange of social evaluations. We evaluate our framework through simulations. The results show that in most of the checked conditions, agents that use our dialog framework significantly improve (statistically) the accuracy of the evaluations, over the agents that do not use it. In particular, the simulations reveal that when there is a heterogeneity set of agents (not all the agents have the same goals) and agents base part of their inferences on third-party information, it is worth using our dialog protocol.
Year
DOI
Venue
2013
10.1016/j.ijar.2012.11.006
Int. J. Approx. Reasoning
Keywords
Field
DocType
agents base part,dialog framework,own knowledge,argumentation-based dialog,open multiagent system,dialog protocol,social evaluation,reliability measure,third-party information,reputation-related information,trust,multi agent systems,reputation
Dialog box,Argument,Subjectivity,Computer science,Argumentation theory,Knowledge management,Multi-agent system,Human–computer interaction,Artificial intelligence,Machine learning,Reputation
Journal
Volume
Issue
ISSN
54
5
0888-613X
Citations 
PageRank 
References 
1
0.34
31
Authors
2
Name
Order
Citations
PageRank
Isaac Pinyol117410.14
Jordi Sabater-Mir257341.11