Artificial societies — distributed systems of autonomous agents — are becoming increasingly important in e-commerce. Agents base their decisions on trust and reputation in ways analogous to human societies. Many different definitions for trust and reputation have been proposed that incorporate many sources of information; however, system designs have tended to focus much of their attention on direct interactions. Furthermore, trust updating schemes for direct interactions have tended to uncouple updates for positive and negative feedback. Consequently, behaviour in which cycles of positive feedback followed by a single negative feedback results in untrustworthy agents remaining undetected. This con-man style of behaviour is formally described and desirable characteristics of con-resistant trust schemes proposed. A con-resistant scheme is proposed and compared with FIRE, Regret and Yu and Singh's model. Simulation experiments demonstrate the utility of the con-resistant scheme.

In this paper, we study distributed algorithms for cooperative agents that  allow them to exchange their assigned tasks in order to reduce their team  cost. We define a new type of contract, called K-swaps, that describes multiple task exchanges among multiple agents at a time, which generalizes the concept of single task exchanges. We design a distributed algorithm that constructs all possible K-swaps that reduce the team cost of a given task allocation and show that each agent typically only needs to communicate a small part of its local computation results to the other agents. We then demonstrate empirically that K-swaps can reduce the team costs of several existing task-allocation algorithms significantly even if K is small.

Planning under uncertainty for multiple agents has flourished with the development of formal models such as multi-agent MDPs and decentralized MDPs. Despite their richness, applicability of these models remains limited due to their computational complexity. We present the class of event-detecting Multi-agent MDPs (eMMDPs), designed to detect multiple mobile targets by a team of sensor agents. We show that eMMDPs are NP-Hard and present a scalable 2-approximation algorithm for solving them using matroid theory and constraint optimization. Its complexity is linear in the state-space and number of agents, quadratic in the horizon, and exponential only in a small parameter that depends on the interaction among the agents. Despite the worst-case approximation ratio of 2, experimental results show that the algorithm produces nearoptimal policies for a range of test problems.

We introduce planning games, a study of interactions of self-motivated agents in automated planning settings. Planning games extend STRIPS-like models of single-agent planning to systems of multiple self-interested agents, providing a rich class of structured games that capture subtle forms of local interactions. We consider two basic models of planning games and adapt game-theoretic solution concepts to these models.  In both models, agents may need to cooperate in order to achieve their goals, but are assumed to do so only in order to increase their net benefit. For each model we study the computational problem of finding a stable solution and provide efficient algorithms for systems exhibiting acyclic interaction structure.

Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) mechanisms are often used to allocate tasks to selfish and rational agents. VCG mechanisms are incentive compatible, direct mechanisms that are efficient (i.e., maximise social utility) and individually rational (i.e., agents prefer to join rather than opt out). However, an important assumption of these mechanisms is that the agents will "always" successfully complete their allocated tasks. Clearly, this assumption is unrealistic in many real-world applications, where agents can, and often do, fail in their endeavours. Moreover, whether an agent is deemed to have failed may be perceived differently by different agents. Such subjective perceptions about an agent's probability of succeeding at a given task are often captured and reasoned about using the notion of "trust". Given this background, in this paper we investigate the design of novel mechanisms that take into account the trust between agents when allocating tasks. Specifically, we develop a new class of mechanisms, called "trust-based mechanisms", that can take into account multiple subjective measures of the probability of an agent succeeding at a given task and produce allocations that maximise social utility, whilst ensuring that no agent obtains a negative utility. We then show that such mechanisms pose a challenging new combinatorial optimisation problem (that is NP-complete), devise a novel representation for solving the problem, and develop an effective integer programming solution (that can solve instances with about 2x10^5 possible allocations in 40 seconds).

Coalition formation is a fundamental type of interaction that involves the creation of coherent groupings of distinct, autonomous, agents in order to efficiently achieve their individual or collective goals. Forming effective coalitions is a major research challenge in the field of multi-agent systems. Central to this endeavour is the problem of determining which of the many possible coalitions to form in order to achieve some goal. This usually requires calculating a value for every possible coalition, known as the coalition value, which indicates how beneficial that coalition would be if it was formed. Once these values are calculated, the agents usually need to find a combination of coalitions, in which every agent belongs to exactly one coalition, and by which the overall outcome of the system is maximized. However, this coalition structure generation problem is extremely challenging due to the number of possible solutions that need to be examined, which grows exponentially with the number of agents involved. To date, therefore, many algorithms have been proposed to solve this problem using different techniques ranging from dynamic programming, to integer programming, to stochastic search all of which suffer from major limitations relating to execution time, solution quality, and memory requirements. With this in mind, we develop an anytime algorithm to solve the coalition structure generation problem. Specifically, the algorithm uses a novel representation of the search space, which partitions the space of possible solutions into sub-spaces such that it is possible to compute upper and lower bounds on the values of the best coalition structures in them. These bounds are then used to identify the sub-spaces that have no potential of containing the optimal solution so that they can be pruned. The algorithm, then, searches through the remaining sub-spaces very efficiently using a branch-and-bound technique to avoid examining all the solutions within the searched subspace(s). In this setting, we prove that our algorithm enumerates all coalition structures efficiently by avoiding redundant and invalid solutions automatically. Moreover, in order to effectively test our algorithm we develop a new type of input distribution which allows us to generate more reliable benchmarks compared to the input distributions previously used in the field. Given this new distribution, we show that for 27 agents our algorithm is able to find solutions that are optimal in 0.175% of the time required by the fastest available algorithm in the literature. The algorithm is anytime, and if interrupted before it would have normally terminated, it can still provide a solution that is guaranteed to be within a bound from the optimal one. Moreover, the guarantees we provide on the quality of the solution are significantly better than those provided by the previous state of the art algorithms designed for this purpose. For example, for the worst case distribution given 25 agents, our algorithm is able to find a 90% efficient solution in around 10% of time it takes to find the optimal solution.

A new search algorithm for solving distributed constraint optimization problems (DisCOPs) is presented. Agents assign variables sequentially and compute bounds on partial assignments asynchronously. The asynchronous bounds computation is based on the propagation of partial assignments. The asynchronous forward-bounding algorithm (AFB) is a distributed optimization search algorithm that keeps one consistent partial assignment at all times. The algorithm is described in detail and its correctness proven. Experimental evaluation shows that AFB outperforms synchronous branch and bound by many orders of magnitude, and produces a phase transition as the tightness of the problem increases. This is an analogous effect to the phase transition that has been observed when local consistency maintenance is applied to MaxCSPs. The AFB algorithm is further enhanced by the addition of a backjumping mechanism, resulting in the AFB-BJ algorithm. Distributed backjumping is based on accumulated information on bounds of all values and on processing concurrently a queue of candidate goals for the next move back. The AFB-BJ algorithm is compared experimentally to other DisCOP algorithms (ADOPT, DPOP, OptAPO) and is shown to be a very efficient algorithm for DisCOPs.

We introduce a resource adaptive agent mechanism which supports the user in interactive theorem proving. The mechanism uses a two layered architecture of agent societies to suggest appropriate commands together with possible command argument instantiations. Experiments with this approach show that its effectiveness can be further improved by introducing a resource concept. In this paper we provide an abstract view on the overall mechanism, motivate the necessity of an appropriate resource concept and discuss its realization within the agent architecture.

Correlated equilibrium generalizes Nash equilibrium to allow correlation devices. Correlated equilibrium captures the idea that in many systems there exists a trusted administrator who can recommend behavior to a set of agents, but can not enforce such behavior. This makes this solution concept most appropriate to the study of multi-agent systems in AI. Aumann showed an example of a game, and of a correlated equilibrium in this game in which the agents' welfare (expected sum of players' utilities) is greater than their welfare in all mixed-strategy equilibria. Following the idea initiated by the price of anarchy literature this suggests the study of two major measures for the value of correlation in a game with nonnegative payoffs: 1. The ratio between the maximal welfare obtained in a correlated equilibrium to the maximal welfare obtained in a mixed-strategy equilibrium. We refer to this ratio as the mediation value. 2. The ratio between the maximal welfare to the maximal welfare obtained in a correlated equilibrium. We refer to this ratio as the enforcement value. In this work we initiate the study of the mediation and enforcement values, providing several general results on the value of correlation as captured by these concepts. We also present a set of results for the more specialized case of congestion games, a class of games that received a lot of attention in the recent literature.

It is well-known that acting in an individually rational manner, according to the principles of classical game theory, may lead to sub-optimal solutions in a class of problems named social dilemmas. In contrast, humans generally do not have much difficulty with social dilemmas, as they are able to balance personal benefit and group benefit. As agents in multi-agent systems are regularly confronted with social dilemmas, for instance in tasks such as resource allocation, these agents may benefit from the inclusion of mechanisms thought to facilitate human fairness. Although many of such mechanisms have already been implemented in a multi-agent systems context, their application is usually limited to rather abstract social dilemmas with a discrete set of available strategies (usually two). Given that many real-world examples of social dilemmas are actually continuous in nature, we extend this previous work to more general dilemmas, in which agents operate in a continuous strategy space. The social dilemma under study here is the well-known Ultimatum Game, in which an optimal solution is achieved if agents agree on a common strategy. We investigate whether a scale-free interaction network facilitates agents to reach agreement, especially in the presence of fixed-strategy agents that represent a desired (e.g. human) outcome. Moreover, we study the influence of rewiring in the interaction network. The agents are equipped with continuous-action learning automata and play a large number of random pairwise games in order to establish a common strategy. From our experiments, we may conclude that results obtained in discrete-strategy games can be generalized to continuous-strategy games to a certain extent: a scale-free interaction network structure allows agents to achieve agreement on a common strategy, and rewiring in the interaction network greatly enhances the agents' ability to reach agreement. However, it also becomes clear that some alternative mechanisms, such as reputation and volunteering, have many subtleties involved and do not have convincing beneficial effects in the continuous case.