{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,5]],"date-time":"2026-01-05T18:28:40Z","timestamp":1767637720714,"version":"3.48.0"},"reference-count":49,"publisher":"Maximum Academic Press","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,6,17]],"date-time":"2020-06-17T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1592352000000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":168,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["The Knowledge Engineering Review"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2020]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>Trust between agents in multi-agent systems (MASs) is critical to encourage high levels of cooperation. Existing methods to assess trust and reputation use direct and indirect past experiences about an agent to estimate their future performance; however, these will not always be representative if agents change their behaviour over time.<\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>Real-world distributed networks such as online market places, P2P networks, pervasive computing and the Smart Grid can be viewed as MAS. Dynamic agent behaviour in such MAS can arise from seasonal changes, cheaters, supply chain faults, network traffic and many other reasons. However, existing trust and reputation models use limited techniques, such as forgetting factors and sliding windows, to account for dynamic behaviour.<\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    In this paper, we propose Reacting and Predicting in Trust and Reputation (RaPTaR), a method to extend existing trust and reputation models to give agents the ability to monitor the output of interactions with a group of agents over time to identify any likely changes in behaviour and adapt accordingly. Additionally, RaPTaR can provide an\n                    <jats:italic>a priori<\/jats:italic>\n                    estimate of trust when there is little or no interaction data (either because an agent is new or because a detected behaviour change suggests recent past experiences are no longer representative). Our results show that RaPTaR has improved performance compared to existing trust and reputation methods when dynamic behaviour causes the ranking of the best agents to interact with to change.\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1017\/s0269888920000077","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2020,6,17]],"date-time":"2020-06-17T03:55:09Z","timestamp":1592366109000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":4,"title":["Improving trust and reputation assessment with dynamic behaviour"],"prefix":"10.48130","volume":"35","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-5907-5750","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Caroline","family":"Player","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Nathan","family":"Griffiths","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"27968","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,6,17]]},"reference":[{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref49","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/TKDE.2004.1318566"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref48","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Yang, Y. , Wu, X. & Zhu, X. 2005. Combining proactive and reactive predictions for data streams. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, 710\u2013715. ACM.","DOI":"10.1145\/1081870.1081961"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref47","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s10618-015-0448-4"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"767","DOI":"10.1007\/s10458-016-9352-6","article-title":"Efficiently detecting switches against non-stationary opponents","volume":"31","author":"Hernandez-Leal","year":"2017","journal-title":"Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref17","unstructured":"Hernandez-Leal, P. , Taylor, M. E. , Rosman, B. , Enrique Sucar, L. & De Cote, E. M. 2016. Identifying and tracking switching, non-stationary opponents: A Bayesian approach. In Workshops at the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref36","unstructured":"Regan, K. , Poupart, P. & Cohen, R. 2006. Bayesian reputation modelling in e-marketplaces sensitive to subjectivity, deception and change. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/11839354_26"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Fullam, K. K. , Klos, T. B. , Muller, G. , Sabater, J. , Schlosser, A. , Topol, Z. , Suzanne Barber, K. , Rosenschein, J. S. , Vercouter, L. & Voss, M. 2005. A specification of the agent reputation and trust (art) testbed: experimentation and competition for trust in agent societies. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 512\u2013518. ACM.","DOI":"10.1145\/1082473.1082551"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/coin.12022"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Debra, M. , Weick, K. E. & Kramer, R. M. 1995. Swift trust and temporary groups. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research 166.","DOI":"10.4135\/9781452243610.n9"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.asoc.2015.04.053"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref21","first-page":"2502","article-title":"The beta reputation system","volume":"5","author":"J\u00f8sang","year":"2002","journal-title":"Proceedings of the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"101","DOI":"10.1023\/A:1007420529897","article-title":"Extracting hidden context","volume":"32","author":"Harries","year":"1998","journal-title":"Machine Learning"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/ARES.2007.71"},{"volume-title":"International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis","author":"Bifet","key":"S0269888920000077_ref4"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref35","unstructured":"Press, W. H. , Teukolsky, S. A. , Vetterling, W. T. & Flannery, B. P. 2007. Statistical description of data: Are two distributions different. Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, pages 730\u2013740."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref6","unstructured":"Burnett, C. , Norman, T. J. & Sycara, K. 2010. Bootstrapping trust evaluations through stereotypes. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 241\u2013248."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"141","DOI":"10.1023\/A:1010007108196","article-title":"Exploration strategies for model-based learning in multi-agent systems: Exploration strategies","volume":"2","author":"Carmel","year":"1999","journal-title":"Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.4018\/978-1-5225-1884-6.ch015"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref20","unstructured":"Huynh, T. D. & Jennings, N. 2004. Fire: An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. In ECAI 2004: 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August 22\u201327, 2004, Valencia, Spain: Including Prestigious Applicants [sic] of Intelligent Systems (PAIS 2004): Proceedings, 110, 18."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref5","unstructured":"Bowling, M. & Veloso, M. 2001. Rational and convergent learning in stochastic games. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 17, 1021\u20131026. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref13","first-page":"213","article-title":"Can We Trust Trust?","volume":"13","author":"Gambetta","year":"2000","journal-title":"Trust: Making and Breaking Coooperative Relations"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref8","unstructured":"Castelfranchi, C. & Falcone, R. 1998. Principles of trust for MAS: Cognitive anatomy. social importance, and quantification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multi Agent Systems, 1998, 72\u201379. IEEE."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/MIS.2002.1005630"},{"volume-title":"Trustworthy Open Self-Organising Systems","year":"2016","author":"Anders","key":"S0269888920000077_ref1"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"482","DOI":"10.1109\/TSC.2014.2365797","article-title":"Trust management for SOA-based IoT and its applications to service composition","volume":"9","author":"Chen","year":"2016","journal-title":"IEEE Transactions on Services Computing"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"6297","DOI":"10.1007\/s00500-016-2183-1","article-title":"Developing a trust model for pervasive computing based on apriori association rules learning and bayesian classification","volume":"21","author":"D\u2019Angelo","year":"2017","journal-title":"Soft Computing"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref24","unstructured":"Lim Choi Keung, S. N. & Griffiths, N. 2010. Trust and reputation. Agent-Based Service-Oriented Computing, 189\u2013224."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kamvar, S. D. , Schlosser, M. T. & Garcia-Molina, H. 2003. The eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in p2p networks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, 640\u2013651. ACM.","DOI":"10.1145\/775152.775242"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref30","unstructured":"Nguyen, D. T. 2017. Trust Management for Complex Agent Groups . PhD thesis, Auckland University of Technology."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s13748-011-0008-0"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref3","unstructured":"Bifet, A. & Gavald\u00e0, R. 2007. Learning from time-changing data with adaptive windowing. In Proceedings of the 2007 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, 443\u2013448."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref26","unstructured":"Liang, Z. & Shi, W. 2005. Pet: A personalized trust model with reputation and risk evaluation for P2P resource sharing. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref2","unstructured":"Anderson, K. , Lee, S. H. & Menassa, C. 2013. Impact of social network type and structure on modeling normative energy use behavior interventions. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 28(1), 30\u201339."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref45","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/PST.2017.00040"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref27","unstructured":"Liu, X. , Datta, A. , Rzadca, K. & Lim, E. 2009. Stereotrust: A group based personalized trust model. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 7\u201316."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s10458-006-5952-x"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.chb.2018.07.028"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref33","unstructured":"Player, C. & Griffiths, N. 2017. Bootstrapping trust and stereotypes with tags. In Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies (Trust at AAMAS)."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref34","unstructured":"Player, C. & Griffiths, N. 2018. Addressing concept drift in reputation assessment. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Adaptive Learning Agents (ALA@AAMAS)."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref37","unstructured":"Resnick, P. , Kuwabara, K. , Zeckhauser, R. & Friedman, E. 2000. Reputation systems. Communications of the ACM 43(12), 45\u201348."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/860575.860655"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1467-8640.2012.00453.x"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/coin.12046"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref31","unstructured":"Nguyen, T.D. & Bai, Q. 2014. Accountable individual trust from group reputations in multi-agent systems. In Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1063\u20131075."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref40","unstructured":"Srivasta, M. , Xiong, L. & Liu, L. 2005. Trustguard: Countering vulnerabilities in reputation management for decentralized overlay networks. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide web, 422\u2013431."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artint.2012.09.001"},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref42","unstructured":"Taylor, P. , Barakat, L. , Miles, S. & Griffiths, N. 2018. Reputation assessment: A review and unifying abstraction. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 33."},{"key":"S0269888920000077_ref46","unstructured":"Tsymbal, A. 2004. The problem of concept drift: Definitions and related work. Computer Science Department, Trinity College Dublin 106(2)."}],"container-title":["The Knowledge Engineering Review"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0269888920000077","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,5]],"date-time":"2026-01-05T14:42:18Z","timestamp":1767624138000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S0269888920000077\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2020]]},"references-count":49,"alternative-id":["S0269888920000077"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s0269888920000077","relation":{},"ISSN":["0269-8889","1469-8005"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"0269-8889"},{"type":"electronic","value":"1469-8005"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2020]]},"article-number":"e29"}}