Adaptive Brokering in Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce

  • Timothy J. Norman
  • Derek H. Sleeman
  • Nial Chapman


In this paper we advocate an approach that extends models of trust and reputation to take into account the competence of agents. The argument is that such an approach will lead to more reliable agent-mediated electronic commerce environments than those in which agents are simply considered to have cooperated or defected. Ifthere is a mismatch between the advertised and actual competence of an agent and the agent fails to complete a task as a consequence of this mismatch, then the description of this agent’s competence should be refined in addition to any loss in reputation. Consequently, this agent is less likely to be employed for an inappropriate task in the future. Two models of adaptive brokering are presented in this paper that illustrate the use of refinement techniques in developing effective brokering mechanisms for agent-mediated electronic commerce.


Successful Agent Success Ratio Reputation System Transport Agent Auction House 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    J.C. Castelfranchi, and R. Falcone, Principles of trust for MAS: Cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 72–79, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    N. Chapman, Refining Models of Agent Competencies, MSc Thesis, University of Aberdeen, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S.G. Sripada, E. Reiter, J. Hunter, J. Yu and I. Davy, Modelling the task of summarising time series data using KA techniques, in A. Macintosh, M. Moulton and A. Preece (eds), Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems IX, Springer, pp. 183–196, 200l.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    T.M. Mitchell. Machine Learning, McGraw–Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Resnick, R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman and K. Kuwabara, Reputation systems: Facilitating trust in Internet interactions, Communications of the ACM, 43(12):45–48, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Sabater and C. Sierra, Reputation and social network analysis in multiagent systems, In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 475–482, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Schillo, P. Funk and M. Rovatsos, Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societies, International Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence, 14(8):825–848, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Winter and D. Sleeman, REFINER+: An efficient system for detecting and removing inconsistencies in example sets, In M. A. Bramer, J. L. Nealon and R. Milne (eds.) Research & Development in Expert Systems XII, Information Press Ltd, pp. 115–132, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Yu and M. P. Singh, Distributed reputation management for electronic commerce, Computational Intelligence, 18(4):535–549, 2002.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy J. Norman
    • 1
  • Derek H. Sleeman
    • 1
  • Nial Chapman
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations