Notions of Reputation in Multi-Agent Systems: A Review [Protected Link] Notions of Reputation in Multi-Agent Systems: A Review

<-Back

@InProceedings{mui-2002c,
  author         = {Lik Mui and Mojdeh Mohtashemi and Ari Halberstadt},
  title          = {Notions of Reputation in Multi-Agent Systems: A Review},
  year           = {2002},
  review-dates   = {2004-08-03},
  value          = {cb},
  address        = {Bologna, Italy},
  publisher      = {ACM},
  month          = {July},
  pages          = {280--287},
  ISBN           = {1-58113-480-0/02/0007},
  hardcopy       = {yes},
  url            = {http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=544807&dl=ACM&coll=portal},
  organization   = {First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MAS},
  key            = {mui-2002c}
}

Summary

This paper presents: Game types mentioned: publicly observable (friedman-1971a), imperfectly publicly monitored games, and privately monitored games (kandori-2002a).

The taxonomy of types presented is as follows:

But the authors identify contextualization as an independent issue, and claim that all reputation is context dependent. Another split between group vs. personal reputation is identified above in parentheses. [There's a lot to quibble with in this typology]

The paper claims there has been significant confusion between trust and reputation. I believe this paper uses the term reputation in places that trust would better fit. I would claim the category individual.direct would better be called trust, whereas individual.indirect would be called reputation. For instance, an agent's own observations would lend themselves well to the word trust, whereas the center of mass on the definition of the word reputation implies some social standing or some group involved in the assessment.

I'm not sure I follow the thinking behind the individual/group split (as the examples in the group category seem to be just aggregation/binning of individuals, not any novel theory. Though can resolve this by reviewing paper's references in these areas.

I'm not comfortable with all the group/personal quality distinctions.

Other than the sociologist sense (kollock-1994a), I'm not sure the strong distinction is there between encounter-derived and observed reputation (which I would call trust). Furthermore, the authors appear to have conflated the distinction between observations and reported observations in their examples.

OPPORTUNITY: The notion of prior-derived reputation is a good call, and the "role-based trust" of huynh-2004a is an example of this type. However, as this paper says, it hasn't been tried (though outlined in some detail by Huybn). Also notes examples of assumptions in priors of mui-2001a (neutral), and zacharia-1991a (minimal initial reputation).

Follow-ups of interest for me:


Key Factors

How placed in context (other work): See references identified in summary above.

Problem Addressed: Insufficient formalization of reputation types. What is dominance of various types in an evolutionary IPD setting?

Main Claim and Evidence:

Assumptions:

Next steps: Extend results of evolutionary IPD to other games. [Ought to include OTFT strategy to the mix]

Remaining open questions: What is a really good formal model of trust and reputation ;)?


Quality

Originality is good.
Contribution/Significance is good.
Quality of organization is excellent.
Quality of writing is excellent.
<-Back