Abstract
In this chapter we put together two major threads of work: trust in the enactment of contracts and the modelling of relationships between agents. We depart from previous work where trust is defined as the relationship between commitment of action and instant observation of the actual actions being performed. Here we generalise the approach by assuming a time delay between the observation of the actions and their valuation. The fundamental new idea being that commitment for action has a social dimension as the commitment of an agent should mean ‘attempting to act’ in the interest of the contractual partner, and that attempt has a time dimension that cannot be ignored.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For convenience it is assumed that both agents are presumed to have completed their enactments by the same time, t′.
- 2.
The ontology is not made explicit to avoid overburdening the notation.
- 3.
It is arguably more correct to consider: \(\mathrm{Value}((a,b)) =\mathrm{ Value}(b) -\mathrm{ Value}(a)\), as β’s actions may be influenced by his expectations of α’s enactment of a—this additional complication is ignored.
- 4.
Computable in the sense that it is finitely computable, and hopefully not computationally complex.
- 5.
The maximum entropy prior expresses total uncertainty about what the prior distribution is.
- 6.
Optimistic in the sense that the estimation can be performed on the basis of the agent’s interaction history.
- 7.
All actions are assumed to be dialogical.
- 8.
Usually omitted to simplify notation.
- 9.
Usually, a set of axioms defined over the concepts and relations is also required. We will omit this here.
- 10.
The reliability estimate should perhaps also be a function of the commitment, R α t(β′, b), but that complication is ignored.
- 11.
In its purest form, individuals in these societies collect food and consume it when and where it is found. This is a pure equity sharing of the resources, the gain is proportional to the effort.
- 12.
In these societies there are family units, around a shelter, that represent the basic food sharing structure. Usually, food is accumulated at the shelter for future use. Then the food intake depends more on the need of the members.
- 13.
This is for efficiency. Updating the model following each utterance could expend resources to little effect.
- 14.
If α assumes the each dimension of the contract space may be ordered to reflect β’s preferences and interprets β’s illocutionary actions of offer as willingness to accept whilst rejecting α’s previous offers then a probabilistic model of β’s limit contracts is derived using maximum entropy inference.
- 15.
When questioning suspects the police may have two officers present each with a deliberately different stance.
References
Acar, W., and M. D. Troutt. 2008. A methodological analysis of the normalisation, calibration and linearity of continuous diversity measures. International Journal of Operational Research 3(1–2): 52–76.
Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 2, ed. L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic.
Arcos, J. L., M. Esteva, P. Noriega, J. A. Rodríguez, and C. Sierra. 2005. Environment engineering for multiagent systems. Journal on Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18(2): 191–204.
Bazerman, M. H., G. F. Loewenstein, and S. B. White. 1992. Reversal of preference in allocation decisions: Judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives. Administration Science Quarterly 37: 220–240.
Behrens, T. E. J., M. W. Woolrich, M. E. Walton, and M. F. S. Rushworth. 2007. Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nature Neuroscience 10: 1214–1221.
Kalfoglou, Y., and M. Schorlemmer. 2003. IF-Map: An ontology-mapping method based on information-flow theory. In Journal on Data Semantics I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2800, ed. S. Spaccapietra, S. March, and K. Aberer, 98–127. Heidelberg: Springer.
Li, Y., Z. A. Bandar, and D. McLean. 2003. An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15(4): 871–882.
MacKay, D. 2003. Information theory, inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge: UK
Osborne, M., and A. Rubinstein. 1994. A course in game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Sierra, C., and J. Debenham. 2007. Information-based agency. In Twentieth international joint conference on AI, IJCAI-07, ed. M.~Veloso, 1513–1518. AAAI Press.
Sierra, C., and J. Debenham. 2007. The LOGIC negotiation model. In Proceedings sixth international conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems AAMAS-2007, 1026–1033. Honolulu, Hawai’i.
Sierra, C., and J. Debenham. 2008. Information-based deliberation. In Proceedings seventh international conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems AAMAS-2008, ed. L. Padgham, D. Parkes, J. Müller, and S. Parsons. New York/Estoril: ACM.
Sierra, C., and J. Debenham. 2009. Information-based reputation. In First international conference on reputation: Theory and technology (ICORE’09), Gargonza, Italy, ed. M. Paolucci, 5–19.
Sondak, H., M. A. Neale, and R. Pinkley. 1995. The negotiated allocations of benefits and burdens: The impact of outcome valence, contribution, and relationship. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 64(3): 249–260.
Valley, K. L., M. A. Neale, and E. A. Mannix. 1995. Friends, lovers, colleagues, strangers: The effects of relationships on the process and outcome of negotiations. In Research in negotiation in organizations, vol. 5, ed. R. Bies, R. Lewicki, and B. Sheppard, 65–93. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sierra, C., Debenham, J. (2013). Building Relationships with Trust. In: Ossowski, S. (eds) Agreement Technologies. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5582-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5583-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)