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.

Effectively modeling an agent's cognitive model is an important problem in many domains. In this paper, we explore the agents people wrote to operate within optimization problems. We claim that the overwhelming majority of these agents used strategies based on bounded rationality, even when optimal solutions could have been implemented. Particularly, we believe that many elements from Aspiration Adaptation Theory (AAT) are useful in quantifying these strategies. To support these claims, we present extensive empirical results from over a hundred agents programmed to perform in optimization problems involving solving for one and two variables.

Coalition structure generation has received considerable attention in recent research. Several algorithms have been proposed to solve this problem in Characteristic Function Games (CFGs), where every coalition is assumed to perform equally well in any coalition structure containing it. In contrast, very little attention has been given to the more general Partition Function Games (PFGs), where a coalition's effectiveness may change from one coalition structure to another. In this paper, we deal with PFGs with positive and negative externalities. In this context, we identify the minimum search that is required in order to establish a bound on the quality of the best coalition structure found. We then develop an anytime algorithm that improves this bound with further search, and show that it outperforms the existing state-of-the-art algorithms by orders of magnitude.

Recently, efficient approximation algorithms for finding Nash equilibria have been developed for the interesting class of anonymous games , where a player's utility does not depend on the identity of its opponents. In this paper, we tackle the problem of computing equilibria in such games with continuous player types , extending the framework to encompass settings with imperfect information. In particular, given the existence result for pure Bayes-Nash equilibiria in these games, we generalise the fictitious play algorithm by developing a novel procedure for finding a best response strategy, which is specifically designed to deal with continuous and, therefore, infinite type spaces. We then combine the best response computation with the general fictitious play structure to obtain an equilibrium. To illustrate the power of this approach, we apply our algorithm to the domain of simultaneous auctions with continuous private values and discrete bids, in which the algorithm shows quick convergence.

The problem of fairly dividing a cake (as a metaphor for a heterogeneous divisible good) has been the subject of much interest since the 1940's, and is of importance in multiagent resource allocation. Two fairness criteria are usually considered: proportionality, in the sense that each of the n agents receives at least 1/n of the cake; and the stronger property of envy-freeness, namely that each agent prefers its own piece of cake to the others' pieces. For proportional division, there are algorithms that require O(nlogn) steps, and recent lower bounds imply that one cannot do better. In stark contrast, known (discrete) algorithms for envy-free division require an unbounded number of steps, even when there are only four agents. In this paper, we give an Omega(n 2 ) lower bound for the number of steps required by envy-free cake-cutting algorithms. This result provides, for the first time, a true separation between envy-free and proportional division, thus giving a partial explanation for the notorious difficulty of the former problem.

The Myerson-Satterthwaite theorem is a foundational impossibility result in mechanism design which states that no mechanism can be Bayes-Nash incentive compatible, individually rational, and not run a deficit. It holds universally for priors that are continuous, gapless, and overlapping.  Using automated mechanism design, we investigate how often the impossibility occurs over discrete valuation domains.  While the impossibility appears to hold generally for settings with large numbers of possible valuations (approaching the continuous case), domains with realistic valuation structure circumvent the impossibility with surprising frequency.  Even if the impossibility applies, the amount of subsidy required to achieve individual rationality and incentive compatibility is relatively small, even over large unstructured domains.

This paper discusses a process of argumentation. We propose an algorithm for dynamic treatment of argumentation in which all lines of argumentation are executed in succession, and the agent's knowledge base can change during argumentation. We show that there exists a case in which an agent dynamically loses argumentation that would be considered won by a static analysis. We also show that the algorithm terminates, and describe acceptable arguments that are obtained after the argumentation.

Strategyproof classification deals with a setting where a decision-maker must classify a set of input points with binary labels, while minimizing the expected error. The labels of the input points are reported by self-interested agents, who might lie in order to obtain a classifier that more closely matches their own labels, thus creating a bias in the data; this motivates the design of truthful mechanisms that discourage false reports. Previous work [Meir et al., 2008] investigated both decision-theoretic and learning-theoretic variations of the setting, but only considered classifiers that belong to a degenerate class. In this paper we assume that the agents are interested in a shared set of input points. We show that this plausible assumption leads to powerful results. In particular, we demonstrate that variations of a truthful random dictator mechanism can guarantee approximately optimal outcomes with respect to any class of classifiers.

Experiments show that these approaches achieve high effectiveness Negotiation scenarios involving nonlinear utility (measured as high optimality rates and low failure rates functions are specially challenging, because traditional for the negotiations) in the evaluation scenario they describe negotiation mechanisms cannot be applied. (Section 2). However, as we will show empirically in Section Even mechanisms designed and proven useful for 5.2, these approaches perform worse as the circumstances of nonlinear utility spaces may fail if the utility space the scenario turn harder (that is, when the utility functions is highly nonlinear. For example, although both are highly nonlinear, like in B2B interactions or distributed contract sampling and constraint sampling have automated control systems). Under these circumstances, the been successfully used in auction based negotiations failure rate increases drastically, raising the need for an alternative with constraint-based utility spaces, they tend approach.

The problem of market clearing in an economy is that of finding prices such that supply meets demand. In this work, we propose a kernel method to compute nonlinear clearing prices for instances where linear prices do not suffice. We first present a procedure that, given a sample of values and costs for a set of bundles, implicitly computes nonlinear clearing prices by solving an appropriately formulated quadratic program. We then use this as a subroutine in an elicitation procedure that queries demand and supply incrementally over rounds, only as much as needed to reach clearing prices. An empirical evaluation demonstrates that, with a proper choice of kernel function, the method is able to find sparse nonlinear clearing prices with much less than full revelation of values and costs. When the kernel function is not suitable to clear the market, the method can be tuned to achieve approximate clearing.