Arguing about Reputation: The LRep Language

  • Isaac Pinyol
  • Jordi Sabater-Mir
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4995)


Since electronic and open environments became a reality, computational models of trust and reputation have attracted increasing interest in the field of multi-agent systems (MAS). In virtual societies of human actors very well-known mechanisms are already used to control non normative agents, for instance, the eBay scoring system. In virtual societies of artificial and autonomous agents, the same necessity arises, and several computational trust and reputation models have appeared in literature to cover this necessity. Typically, these models provide evaluations of agents’ performance in a specific context, taking into account direct experiences and third party information. This last source of information is the communication of agents’ own opinions. When dealing with cognitive agents endowed with complex reasoning mechanisms, we would like that these opinions could be justified in a way such that the resulting information was more complete and reliable. In this paper we present LRep, a language based on an existing ontology of reputation that allows building justifications of communicated social evaluations.


Multiagent System Description Logic Direct Experience Cognitive Agent Agent Society 
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.
    Bromley, D.B.: Reputation, Image and Impression Management. John Wiley, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karlins, M., Abelson, H.I.: Persuasion, how opinion and attitudes are changed. Crosby Lockwood & Son (1970)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buskens, V.: The social structure of trust. Social Networks 20, 265–298 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Plato: The Republic (370BC). Viking Press (1955)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hume, D.: A Treatise of Human Nature (1737). Clarendon Press, Oxford (1975)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marimon, R., Nicolini, J.P., Teles, P.: Competition and reputation. In: Proceedings of the World Conference Econometric Society, Seattle (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Celentani, M., Fudenberg, D., Levine, D.K., Psendorfer, W.: Maintaining a reputation against a long-lived opponent. Econometrica 64(3), 691–704 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    eBay: eBay (2002),
  9. 9.
    Amazon: Amazon Auctions (2002),
  10. 10.
    OnSale: OnSale (2002),
  11. 11.
    Abdul-Rahman, A., Hailes, S.: Supporting trust in virtual communities. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii’s International Conference on Systems Sciences, Maui, Hawaii (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esfandiari, B., Chandrasekharan, S.: On how agents make friends: Mechanisms for trust acquisition. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Montreal, Canada, pp. 27–34 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schillo, M., Funk, P., Rovatsos, M.: Using trust for detecting deceitful agents in artificial societites. Applied Artificial Intelligence (Special Issue on Trust, Deception and Fraud in Agent Societies) (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, B., Singh, M.P.: Towards a probabilistic model of distributed reputation management. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Montreal, Canada, pp. 125–137 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carbo, J., Molina, J., Davila, J.: Trust management through fuzzy reputation. Int. Journal in Cooperative Information Systems (2002) (in press)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sen, S., Sajja, N.: Robustness of reputation-based trust: Boolean case. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, pp. 288–293 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sabater, J., Paolucci, M., Conte, R.: Repage: Reputation and image among limited autonomous partners. J. of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(2) (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carter, J., Bitting, E., Ghorbani, A.: Reputation formalization for an information-sharing multi-agent sytem. Computational Intelligence 18(2), 515–534 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Montreal, Canada, pp. 61–69 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Conte, R., Paolucci, M.: Reputation in artificial societies: Social beliefs for social order. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pinyol, I., Sabater-Mir, J., Cuni, G.: How to talk about reputation using a common ontology: From definition to implementation. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies, Hawaii, USA, pp. 90–101 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baader, F., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The description logic handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pinyol, I., Paolucci, M., Sabater-Mir, J., Conte, R.: Beyond accuracy. reputation for partner selection with lies and retaliation. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Multi-Agent-Based Simulation, pp. 134–146 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isaac Pinyol
    • 1
  • Jordi Sabater-Mir
    • 1
  1. 1.IIIA - Artificial Intelligence Research InstituteCSIC - Spanish Scientific Research CouncilBellaterra, BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations