Skip to main content

A New View on Normativeness in Distributed Reputation Systems

Beyond Behavioral Beliefs

  • Conference paper
Book cover Agents and Peer-to-Peer Computing (AP2PC 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4118))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Autonomous entities in artificial societies are only willing to cooperate with entities they trust. Reputation systems keep track of the entities’ behavior and, thus, are a widely used means to support trust formation. In a P2P network, the reputation system needs to be distributed to the individual entities. In previous work, we have shown that some of the limitations of distributed reputation systems can be overcome by making use of hard evidence. In this paper, we take this idea one step further by deriving beliefs of others’ trustworthiness from one’s own experiences and the available hard evidence. For this purpose, we justify why a self-interested autonomous entity may choose to behave according to the norms of the system designer. As a consequence, the proposed belief model does not only incorporate behavioral beliefs but also beliefs regarding the normativeness of an entity. We prescribe how beliefs are revised if new evidence becomes available. The introduced models for recommendations and belief formation enable us to prove that self-interested entities always issue truthful recommendations regarding transactional behavior. The simulative evaluation shows that a self-interested entity can be expected to be normative and, thus, to comply with our system design.

The work done for this paper is funded by the German Research Community (DFG) in the context of the priority program (SPP) no. 1140. The authors would like to thank Michael Klein, Jens Nimis and Sokshee Goh for their comments on this paper. In addition, we are grateful for Peter Reiher’s comments on the legal obstacles for tampering software.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Buchegger, S., Boudec, J.Y.L.: A robust reputation system for P2P and mobile ad-hoc networks. In: Second Workshop on the Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Despotovic, Z., Aberer, K.: A probabilistic approach to predict peers’ performance in P2P networks. In: Klusch, M., Ossowski, S., Kashyap, V., Unland, R. (eds.) CIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3191, pp. 62–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Kamvar, S.D., Schlosser, M.T., Garcia-Molina, H.: The EigenTrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks. In: WWW 2003 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Castelfranchi, C., Conte, R., Paolucci, M.: Normative reputation and the costs of compliance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 1 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Obreiter, P.: A case for evidence-aware distributed reputation systems. In: Jensen, C., Poslad, S., Dimitrakos, T. (eds.) iTrust 2004. LNCS, vol. 2995, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Obreiter, P., Nimis, J.: A taxonomy of incentive patterns - the design space of incentives for cooperation. In: Moro, G., Sartori, C., Singh, M.P. (eds.) AP2PC 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2872, pp. 89–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Obreiter, P., Fähnrich, S., Nimis, J.: How social structure improves distributed reputation systems - three hypotheses. In: Moro, G., Bergamaschi, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) AP2PC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3601. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Jurca, R., Faltings, B.: Towards incentive-compatible reputation management. In: Falcone, R., Barber, S., Korba, L., Singh, M.P. (eds.) AAMAS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2631, pp. 138–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, P.: Software, reverse engineering and the law (2005), http://lwn.net/Articles/134642/

  10. Hoffman, I.: Derivative works (2002), http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative2.html

  11. Council of the European Communities: Software directive – council directive on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250/EEC) (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Linn, C., Debray, S.: Obfuscation of executable code to improve resistance to static disassembly. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Computer and Communication Security, pp. 290–299 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tuomela, R.: The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Norms. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mui, L., Halberstadt, A., Mohtashemi, M.: Notions of reputation in multi-agents systems: A review. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Helton, J.: Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in the presence of stochastic and subjective uncertainty. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 57, 3–76 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Bacchus, F.: Probabilistic belief logics. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1990), pp. 59–64 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Josang, A., Ismail, R.: The beta reputation system. In: 15th Bled Conference on Electronic Commerce, Bled, Slovenia (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kinateder, M., Rothermel, K.: Architecture and algorithms for a distributed reputation system. In: Nixon, P., Terzis, S. (eds.) iTrust 2003. LNCS, vol. 2692, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Allen, J., Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) 2nd Intl. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rasmusen, E.: Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory. Oxford Blackwell, Malden (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Klein, M.: DIANEmu – a java-based generic simulation environment for distributed protocols. Technical Report 2003-7, Universität Karlsruhe, Faculty of Informatics (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Obreiter, P., König-Ries, B. (2006). A New View on Normativeness in Distributed Reputation Systems. In: Despotovic, Z., Joseph, S., Sartori, C. (eds) Agents and Peer-to-Peer Computing. AP2PC 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4118. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11925941_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11925941_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-49025-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68967-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics