多Agent合作求解中的信任与协商研究
|
摘要
在大规模开放环境中,Agent不可避免地要与其它Agent反复交互以实现其合作求解目标,因而每个Agent都会形成自己的历史交互。智能Agent自然能够从中得到更多的信息和知识并将其应用于之后的交互中,优化多Agent的合作求解效果。
在Agent理论中,信任与协商是两个基本问题。信任是合作求解的前提和基础,协商是合作求解的基本方法,因而信任和协商关系密切。信任计算是一个有意义的研究方向,它能够保证软件Agent在大规模开放环境中的良好交互。不完全信息条件下的多议题协商一直是多Agent系统合作求解研究的一个至关重要又有挑战性的课题,一直是众多学者关注的焦点之一。然而,多Agent合作求解中的信任与协商问题至今没有得到很好的解决,存在一些可以继续改进的地方。从多Agent的交互历史中学习,得到信任计算和协商优化方法,正是本文研究的动机。
关于多Agent合作求解中的信任与协商研究,主要存在以下问题。
目前Agent信任研究大多是基于概率论以平均交互成功率来计算,较少考虑信任动态变化,因而信任的准确预测和异常行为的检测能力不能令人满意。另外,很少有工作致力于长期联盟信誉的研究。而且开放网络环境中存在着大量不精确和不完全信息,导致信任计算置信度不高,如何提高信任的应对噪声能力仍然需要进行探讨。
在目前不完全信息条件下的Agent多议题协商中,最优回价策略一般采用间接学习对手偏好的方式,尚不能令人满意,而实际上Agent一般拥有或多或少的协商经验和领域知识,目前这些经验和知识都未得到很好的利用。多议题协商中效用函数的选择一直没有得到应有的重视,很多学者采用了线性的效用函数,这导致了在计算Agent的协商效用时涵盖范围较小。
本文针对以上问题开展工作,主要工作如下:
(1)提出了一种Agent动态交互信任计算模型。以概率论为工具,按时间分段交互历史信息,结合信任的变化率,给出信任计算的置信度和异常行为检测机制。实验以网上电子商务为背景,实验结果表明预测误差比TRAVOS少一倍,计算量也较少;改进了Jennings等人关于Agent信任的工作。
(2)提出了一种Agent长期联盟信誉模型LCCM。还给出了联盟信誉与联盟收益之间的关系函数。实验结果表明LCCM能够有效地计算联盟信誉,并能反映不同参数对联盟信誉的影响。
(3)提出了一种不完全信息条件下基于案例和对策论的Agent多议题Pareto最优协商模型。当案例库规模控制在一定范围内时低于Fatima工作的计算复杂度。实验结果表明该协商模型能够取得更优的效用和更短的达成一致时间。改进了Fatima等人的工作。
(4)将多议题协商的效用函数由线性扩展为非线性,基于Sigmoid函数提出了一种改进的符合边际效用递减原理的效用函数,给出了一种两阶段多资源配置协商模型和可行的算法。其算法的计算复杂度为多项式级。实验结果显示该模型的优化效率高于其它协商模型和算法。
Generally, there are iterative interactions among agents in large open environment. So each agent usually forms its own interaction history. Sequentially, intelligent agent would derive some useful information and knowledge from history data to be reused in the future for optimizing the performance of interactions.
Trust and negotiation are two important problems in cooperative solving of multi-agent systems. Trust is the base of cooperative solving and negotiation is a basic method of cooperative solving. So it is necessary to research on trust and negotiation together. Computation of trust is an interesting direction in multi-agent systems, for good trust relationship would guarantee the success of the future interactions in large open environment. Furthermore, multi-issue negotiation with incomplete information is always an important and challenging problem in cooperative solving. Unfortunately, trust and negotiation have not been resolved ideally up to now. It is the motivation of this dissertation to obtain optimal methods of trust and negotiation from the history of interactions.
There are some shortages in the researches of trust and negotiation of multi-agent systems.
Previous work on trust is only based on the average probability of historical interactions and there is a lack of attention to dynamic variety of agent trust. So the ability of precise prediction of trust and abnormal behavior detection is not satisfied. Few studies have been done on agent coalition credit to this day and there is a need to investigate it in detail. Furthermore, there are lots of imprecise and lying information in large open environment, which leads to a low confidence of trust computation.
Previous work on multi-issue negotiation usually uses indirect approaches to acquire the preferences of the opponent such as a variety of data mining methods. On the other hand, agents usually have some negotiation experiences and domain knowledge which may help them get better negotiation results. Furthermore, the choice of utility functions has not been paid more attention to. Previous papers mostly adopted linear utility functions which is not widely used in most circumstances.
To this end, this dissertation introduces the followings.
(1) We propose a computational model of agent dynamic interaction trust (CMAIT), where interaction history is divided by time. Sequentially, based on the first derivative of trust, we give the confidence of computational information and that of computational deviation of CMAIT. The mechanism of abnormal behavior's detection of CMAIT is also given. We conduct Experiments on E-commerce at taobao website. Experimental results demonstrate that the computational error of CMAIT is half of that of TRAVOS model and its computational complexity is also lower than TRAVOS model. It improves the work of Jennings on agent trust.
(2) We present a long-term coalition credit model (LCCM). Sequentially, the relationship between coalition credit and coalition payoff is also given. Generalization of LCCM can be demonstrated through experiments applied in both cooperative and competitive environment. Experimental results show that LCCM is capable of coalition credit computation efficiently and can properly reflect the effect of various factors on coalition credit.
(3) We propose an agent multi-issue negotiation model under incomplete information based on cases and game theory. The computational complexity of the proposed algorithm is polynomial order and it is commonly lower than that of Fatima, as long as the scale of cases base is limited to a bounded quantities. Experimental results indicate that the utility and the reaching time of our experiments have an advantage of that of human beings and the method of Lin. It improves the work of Fatima.
(4) We expand linear utility function to a nonlinear one. Particularly, we propose an improved utility function based on sigmoid function in neural network, according to the principle of marginal utility decreasing. Sequentially, we present a negotiation model over multiple divisible resources with two phases, as well as its feasible algorithm. The computational complexity of this model is polynomial order. Experimental results show that the optimal efficiency of this model takes an advantage over the previous work.
在Agent理论中,信任与协商是两个基本问题。信任是合作求解的前提和基础,协商是合作求解的基本方法,因而信任和协商关系密切。信任计算是一个有意义的研究方向,它能够保证软件Agent在大规模开放环境中的良好交互。不完全信息条件下的多议题协商一直是多Agent系统合作求解研究的一个至关重要又有挑战性的课题,一直是众多学者关注的焦点之一。然而,多Agent合作求解中的信任与协商问题至今没有得到很好的解决,存在一些可以继续改进的地方。从多Agent的交互历史中学习,得到信任计算和协商优化方法,正是本文研究的动机。
关于多Agent合作求解中的信任与协商研究,主要存在以下问题。
目前Agent信任研究大多是基于概率论以平均交互成功率来计算,较少考虑信任动态变化,因而信任的准确预测和异常行为的检测能力不能令人满意。另外,很少有工作致力于长期联盟信誉的研究。而且开放网络环境中存在着大量不精确和不完全信息,导致信任计算置信度不高,如何提高信任的应对噪声能力仍然需要进行探讨。
在目前不完全信息条件下的Agent多议题协商中,最优回价策略一般采用间接学习对手偏好的方式,尚不能令人满意,而实际上Agent一般拥有或多或少的协商经验和领域知识,目前这些经验和知识都未得到很好的利用。多议题协商中效用函数的选择一直没有得到应有的重视,很多学者采用了线性的效用函数,这导致了在计算Agent的协商效用时涵盖范围较小。
本文针对以上问题开展工作,主要工作如下:
(1)提出了一种Agent动态交互信任计算模型。以概率论为工具,按时间分段交互历史信息,结合信任的变化率,给出信任计算的置信度和异常行为检测机制。实验以网上电子商务为背景,实验结果表明预测误差比TRAVOS少一倍,计算量也较少;改进了Jennings等人关于Agent信任的工作。
(2)提出了一种Agent长期联盟信誉模型LCCM。还给出了联盟信誉与联盟收益之间的关系函数。实验结果表明LCCM能够有效地计算联盟信誉,并能反映不同参数对联盟信誉的影响。
(3)提出了一种不完全信息条件下基于案例和对策论的Agent多议题Pareto最优协商模型。当案例库规模控制在一定范围内时低于Fatima工作的计算复杂度。实验结果表明该协商模型能够取得更优的效用和更短的达成一致时间。改进了Fatima等人的工作。
(4)将多议题协商的效用函数由线性扩展为非线性,基于Sigmoid函数提出了一种改进的符合边际效用递减原理的效用函数,给出了一种两阶段多资源配置协商模型和可行的算法。其算法的计算复杂度为多项式级。实验结果显示该模型的优化效率高于其它协商模型和算法。
Generally, there are iterative interactions among agents in large open environment. So each agent usually forms its own interaction history. Sequentially, intelligent agent would derive some useful information and knowledge from history data to be reused in the future for optimizing the performance of interactions.
Trust and negotiation are two important problems in cooperative solving of multi-agent systems. Trust is the base of cooperative solving and negotiation is a basic method of cooperative solving. So it is necessary to research on trust and negotiation together. Computation of trust is an interesting direction in multi-agent systems, for good trust relationship would guarantee the success of the future interactions in large open environment. Furthermore, multi-issue negotiation with incomplete information is always an important and challenging problem in cooperative solving. Unfortunately, trust and negotiation have not been resolved ideally up to now. It is the motivation of this dissertation to obtain optimal methods of trust and negotiation from the history of interactions.
There are some shortages in the researches of trust and negotiation of multi-agent systems.
Previous work on trust is only based on the average probability of historical interactions and there is a lack of attention to dynamic variety of agent trust. So the ability of precise prediction of trust and abnormal behavior detection is not satisfied. Few studies have been done on agent coalition credit to this day and there is a need to investigate it in detail. Furthermore, there are lots of imprecise and lying information in large open environment, which leads to a low confidence of trust computation.
Previous work on multi-issue negotiation usually uses indirect approaches to acquire the preferences of the opponent such as a variety of data mining methods. On the other hand, agents usually have some negotiation experiences and domain knowledge which may help them get better negotiation results. Furthermore, the choice of utility functions has not been paid more attention to. Previous papers mostly adopted linear utility functions which is not widely used in most circumstances.
To this end, this dissertation introduces the followings.
(1) We propose a computational model of agent dynamic interaction trust (CMAIT), where interaction history is divided by time. Sequentially, based on the first derivative of trust, we give the confidence of computational information and that of computational deviation of CMAIT. The mechanism of abnormal behavior's detection of CMAIT is also given. We conduct Experiments on E-commerce at taobao website. Experimental results demonstrate that the computational error of CMAIT is half of that of TRAVOS model and its computational complexity is also lower than TRAVOS model. It improves the work of Jennings on agent trust.
(2) We present a long-term coalition credit model (LCCM). Sequentially, the relationship between coalition credit and coalition payoff is also given. Generalization of LCCM can be demonstrated through experiments applied in both cooperative and competitive environment. Experimental results show that LCCM is capable of coalition credit computation efficiently and can properly reflect the effect of various factors on coalition credit.
(3) We propose an agent multi-issue negotiation model under incomplete information based on cases and game theory. The computational complexity of the proposed algorithm is polynomial order and it is commonly lower than that of Fatima, as long as the scale of cases base is limited to a bounded quantities. Experimental results indicate that the utility and the reaching time of our experiments have an advantage of that of human beings and the method of Lin. It improves the work of Fatima.
(4) We expand linear utility function to a nonlinear one. Particularly, we propose an improved utility function based on sigmoid function in neural network, according to the principle of marginal utility decreasing. Sequentially, we present a negotiation model over multiple divisible resources with two phases, as well as its feasible algorithm. The computational complexity of this model is polynomial order. Experimental results show that the optimal efficiency of this model takes an advantage over the previous work.
引文
[1]Aamodt A.,Plaza E..Case-based Reasoning:Foundational Issues,Methodological Variations,and System Approaches[J].AICOM,1994,7(1):39-59.
[2]Agotnes T.,Hock W.v.d.,Wooldridge M..On the Logic of Coalitional Games[C].(AAMAS'06),Hakodate,Japan,May 2006.
[3]Agotnes T.,Hoek W.v.d.,Wooldridge M..Temporal Qualitative Coalitional Games[C].(AAMAS'06),Hakodate,Japan,May 2006.
[4]Agotnes T.,Hock W.v.d.,Wooldridge M..Quantified Coalition Logic[C].IJCAI'07,Hyderabad,India,January 2007.
[5]An B.,Miao C.,Shen Z.,Market Based Resource Allocation with Incomplete Information[C],IJCAI'07,India,2007,pp.1193-1198.
[6]Ashri R.,Ramchurn S.D.,Sabater J.,Luck M.,Jennings N.R.,Trust Evaluation Through Relationship Analysis[C],AAMAS'05,Utrecht,Netherlands,July,2005.
[7]Beth T.,Borcherding M.,Klein B..Valuation of trust in open network[C].In:Gollmann D,ed.Proceedings of the European Symposium on Research in Security(ESORICS).Brighton:Springer-Verlag,1994.3-18.
[8]Blankenburg B.,Dash R.K.,Ramchurn S.D.,Klusch M.,Jennings N.R..Trusted Kernel-Based Coalition Formation[C].AAMAS'05,Utrecht,Netherlands,July 25-29,2005.
[9]Blaze M.,Feigenbaum J.,Lacy J..Decentralized trust management[C].In:Dale,J.,Dinolt,G.,eds.Proceedings of the 17~(th) Symposium on Security and Privacy.Oakland,CA:IEEE Computer Society Press,1996.164-173.
[10]Brandt F.,Sandholm T.,Shoham Y.,Spiteful Bidding in Sealed-Bid Auctions[C].IJCAI'07,India,2007,p.1207-1214.
[11]Candale T.,Sen S..Multi-Dimensional Bid Improvement Algorithm for Simultaneous Auctions[C],IJCAI'07,India,2007,p.1215-1220.
[12]Chevaleyre Y.,Reaching Envy-free States in Distributed Negotiation Settings[C],IJCAI'07,India,2007,p.1239-1244.
[13]Coehoorn R.M.,Jennings N.R..Learning an opponent's preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation tradeoffs[C],Proc.6th Int Conf.on E-Commerce,Delft,The Netherlands,59-68.2004.
[14]Conitzer V.,Sandholm T..Complexity of constructing solutions in the core based on synergies among coalitions[J],Artificial Intelligence,2006,170:607-619.
[15]Dang V.D.,Jennings N.R..Generating coalition structures with finite bound from the optimal guarantees[C],in:Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems(AAMAS'04),2004,pp.564-571.
[16]Dang V.D.,Dash R.K.,Rogers A.Jennings N.R..Overlapping Coalition Formation for Efficient Data Fusion in Multi-Sensor Networks[C],(AAAI'06),Boston,MA,July 2006.
[17]Dang V.D.,Jennings N.R..Coalition Structure Generation in Task-Based Settings[C].ECAI06.
[18]Etzioni O..Moving up the information food chain:deploying softbots on the World Wide Web[C].In proceedings of the 13~(th) National Conference on Artificial Intelligence(AAAI'96),Portlan,OR,1996,pp.4-8.
[19]Fatima S.S.,Wooldridge M.,Jennings N.R..Optimal agenda for Multi-issue Negotiation[C],AAMAS'03,Melbourne,Australia,2003,p.129-136.
[20]Fatima S.S.,Wooldridge M.,Jennings N.R..An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation[J].Artificial Intelligence,2004,152(1):1-45.
[21]Fatima S.S.,Wooldridge M.,Jennings N.R..Multi-Issue Negotiation with Deadlines[J],Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research(JAIR),2006,27:381-417.
[22]Faratin P.,Sierra C.,Jennings N.R..Using similarity criteria to make trade-offs in automated negotiations[J],Artificial Intelligence,2002,142(2):205-237.
[23] Gao J., Zhang W.. Multi-Agent Negotiation Optimization Based on Accelerating Chaos Search Method[C], ICCSE'2006, 2006.8.
[24] Gao J., Zhang W., Holon Based Self-Organization Evolution in MAS[C], DCABES'07, pp.768-771.
[25] Gao J., Zhang W.. Agent-Based Multi-Dimensional Trust Model in Grid Environments[C]. ICCSE'07, pp.691-695.
[26] Gatti N., Giunta F. D., Marino S.. Alternating-offers bargaining with one-sided uncertain deadlines: an efficient algorithm [J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2008,172:1119-1157.
[27] Gerding H., Rogers A., Dash R. K., Jennings N. R.. Sellers Competing for Buyers in Online Markets: Reserve Prices, Shill Bids, and Auction Fees[C], IJCI'07, India, 2007, p. 1287-1293.
[28] Griffiths N., Luck M.. Coalition Formation through Motivation and Trust[C], AAMAS'03,July 14-18,2003,Melbourne,Australia.
[29] He L., Huang H., Zhang W., Zhao K.. ALRS: agent based literature recommendation system[C]. Accepted by 2009 international workshop on intelligent systems and applications (ISA'09), Wuhan, China, May 2009.
[30] Holland A., Sullivan B. O., Truthful Risk-Managed Combinatorial Auctions[C], IJCAI'07, India, 2007, p. 1315-1320.
[31] Huynh T. D., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N. R.. Developing an Integrated Trust and Reputation Model for Open Multi-Agent Systems[C], AAMAS'04. New York, USA. July 19-23,2004.
[32] Huynh T. D., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N. R.. An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems[J]. Journal of autonomous Agent multi-agent system, 13, pp. 119-154,2006.
[33] Jennings N. R.. on agent-based software engineering[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2000, 117(2):277-296.
[34] Jennings N. R., Faratin P., Lomuscio A. R., et al.,, Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges[J]. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 2001, 10(2): 199-215.
[35] Josang A.. A model for trust in security systems[C]. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic Workshop on Secure Computer Systems. 1997.
[36] Josang A., Ismail R.. The beta reputation system[C]. In Proceedings of the 15th Bled Conference onElectronic Commerce, Bled, Slovenia, June 2002.
[37] Jesang A., Ismail R., Boyd C. A Survey of Trust and Reputation Systems for Online Service Provision [J]. Decision Support Systems, 2007,43(2): 618-644.
[38] Karunatillake N. C, Jennings N. R., Rahwan I., et al., Argument-based negotiation within a social context[C], Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, 74-88. 2005
[39] Kraus S. et al., Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2008,172(1): 1-18.
[40] Liau C. Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems—A modal logic formulation[J], Artificial Intelligence 149. pp. 31-60,2003.
[41] Lin R., Kraus S., Wilkenfeld J., Barry J.. Negotiating with Bounded Rational Agents in Environments with Incomplete Information Using an Automated Agent[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2008, 172(6-7): 823-851.
[42] Luo X., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N., etc, A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2003,148 (1-2): 53-102.
[43] Luo X., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N.. Acquiring user tradeoffs and preferences for negotiating agents: a default then adjust method, Journal of Human Computer Studies[J], 2006,64: 304-321.
[44] Manisterski E., Sarne D., Kraus S.. Enhancing MAS Cooperative Search Through Coalition Partitioning[C], IJCAI'07, India, 2007, p. 1415-1421.
[45] Mui L.. Computational model for trust and reputation: Agent, evolutionary games, social networks, [D]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, USA, 2003.
[46] Narayanan V., Jennings N. R.. Learning to Negotiate Optimally in Non-Stationary Environments[C]. CIA'06.
[47] Neumman J. V., Morgenstern O.. Theory of Games and Economics Behaviour[M]. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1944.
[48] Pratt J.W.. Risk aversion in the small and in the large [J]. Econometrica, 1964, 32:122-136.
[49] Rahwan T., Ramchurn S. D., Dang V. D., Jennings N. R.. Near-optimal anytime coalition structure generation[C]. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'07) in Hyderabad, India. 2007, pp. 2365-2371.
[50] Rahwan T., Ramchurn S. D., Giovannucci A., Dang V. D., Jennings N. R.. Anytime optimal coalition structure generation[C]. In Proceedings of the 22nd conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI'07) in Vancouver, Canada. 2007, pp. 1184-1190.
[51] Rahwan T., Jennings N. R.. An algorithm for distributing coalitional value calculations among cooperating agents[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171: 535-567.
[52] Rahwan T., Jennings N. R.. An improved dynamic programming algorithm for coalition structure generation[C]. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS'08), Portugal, 2008: 1417-1420,
[53] Ramchurn S. D., Jennings N. R., C. Sierra, Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: A rhetorical approach[C], IJCAI'03, Acapulco, Mexico, 9-17. 2003.
[54] Ramchurn S. D., Jennings N. R., Sierra C, Godo L., A Computational Trust Model for Multi-Agent Interactions based on Confidence and Reputation[C], AAMAS'04., New York, New York, USA, July, 2004.
[55] Ramchurn S. D., Sierra C, Godo L., Jennings N. R., Negotiating using rewards[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171: 805-837.
[56] Rao AS, Georgeff MP. Modeling rational agents within a BDI architecture[C]. In: Allen J, Fikes R, Sandewall E, eds. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. of the 2nd Int'l Conf. (KR-91). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1991, pp. 473-484.
[57] Rao AS, Georgeff MP. The semantics of intention maintenance for rational agents[C]. In: Mellish SC, ed. Proc. of the 14th Int'l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1995, pp. 704-710.
[58] Sabater, J., Sierra, C. Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies[C]. In Proceedings of the 4thWorkshoponDeception Fraud andTrust in AgentSocieties, 2001, pp. 61-70.
[59] Saha S., Sen S., An Efficient Protocol for Negotiation over Multiple Indivisible Resources[C], IJCAI'07, India, 2007, pp. 1494-1499.
[60] Sandholm, T. and Lesser, V. Coalitions among Computationally Bounded Agent[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1), 1997 Special issue on Economic Principles of MultiAgent Systems, pp. 99-137.
[61] Sandholm, T., Larson, K., anderson, M.,Shehory, O., and Tohme, F., coalition Structure Generation with Worst Case Guarantees[J], Artificial Intelligence, 1999, 111(1-2): 209-238.
[62] Sandholm T., Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2002, 135: 1-54.
[63] Sandholm T., Suri S., BOB: Improved winner determination in combinatorial auctions and generalizations[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2003,145: 33-58.
[64] Schwartz D. G.. Agent-oriented epistemic reasoning: Subjective conditions of knowledge and belief[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2003, 148: 177-195.
[65] Sen S., Dutta P.. Searching for optimal coalition structures[C]. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, 2000, pp. 286-292.
[66] Sen S.. Believing others: Pros and cons[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2002, 142: 179-203.
[67] Shehory O., Kraus S., Task allocation via coalition formation among autonomous Agents [C], in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'95), 1995, pp. 655-661.
[68] Shehory O., Kraus S.. Methods for task allocation via Agent coalition formation [J], Artificial Intelligence, 1998, 101(1-2): 165-200.
[69] Teacy W. T. L., Patel J., Jennings N. R., Luck M.. Coping with Inaccurate Reputation Sources: Experimental Analysis of a Probabilistic Trust Model[C], AAMAS'05, July 25-29, 2005, Utrecht, Netherlands.
[70]Teacy W.T.L.,Patel J.,Jennings N.R.,Luck M..TRAVOS:Trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources[J],Journal of autonomous Agent multi-agent system,2006,12:183-198.
[71]Tong X.,Zhang W.,Agent multi-issue negotiation with cases[C].The 5th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery(FSKD'08),Jinan,2008,pp.96-100.
[72]Tong X.,Huang H.,Zhang W..Agent long-term coalition credit[J].Expert systems with applications,2009,36(5):9457-9465.
[73]Tong X.,Huang H.,Zhang W..Group trust and group reputation[C].ICNC'09,2009.
[74]Turing A.M.Computing machinery and intelligence[J].In Computer and thought(ed.E.A.Feigenbaum).McGraw-Hill,1963.
[75]Vassileva J.,Breban S.,Horsch M.,Agent Reasoning Mechanism for Long-Term Coalitions Based on Decision Making and Trust[J],Computational Intelligence,2002,18(4):583-595.
[76]Wooldridge M.,Jennings N.R.Intelligent agents:theory and practice[J].The Knowledge Engineering Review,1995,10(2):115-152.
[77]Wooldridge M.An introduction to multi-agent systems[M].2002,John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
[78]Wooldridge M.,Dunne P.E.,On the computational complexity of qualitative coalitional games[J],Artificial Intelligence,2004,158:27-73.
[79]Wooldridge M.,Dunne P.E..On the Computational Complexity of Coalitional Resource Games[J].Artificial Intelligence,2006,170(10):835-871.
[80]Wu X.,Fan B.,Zhang W.,Study on Performance Improving for Resource Management of Computational Grid Based upon AT[C],Watam Press,2006,5.
[81]Yokoo M.,Sakurai Y.,Matsubara S.,Robust combinatorial auction protocol against False-name Bids[C],In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.2000,110-115.
[82]Yokoo M.,Sakurai Y.,Matsubara S.,Bundle design in robust combinatorial auction protocol against False-name Bids[C],In Proceeding of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,2001:1095-1101.
[83]Yokoo M.,Sakurai Y.,Matsubara S.,The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions:new fraud in internet auctions[J],Games and Economic Behavior.2004,46(1):174-188.
[84]Yu B.,Singh P.Detecting deception in reputation management[C].In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems,Melbourne,Australia,July 2003.ACM Press,pp.73-80.
[85]Zhang D.M.,Wong W.Y..A Web-Based Negotiation Agent Using CBR[C].PRICAI Workshops,Melbourne,Australia,2000:183-198.
[86]Zhu F.,Guan J.,et al.An Automatic Negotiation Method Based on CBR and Agent Reasoning[C],Proceedings of CIT'05,Shanghai,China,2005:1019-1025.
[87]常志明,毛新军,齐治昌.基于Agent的网构软件构件模型及其实现[J].软件学报,2008,19(05):1113-1124.
[88]常志明,毛新军,王戟,齐治昌.多Agent系统中软构件的动态绑定机制及其操作语义[J].计算机研究与发展,2007,44(5):806-814.
[89]董明楷,张海俊,史忠植.基于动态描述逻辑的主体模型[J].计算机研究与发展,2004,41(5):780-786
[90]窦文,王怀民,贾焰,邹鹏.构造基于推荐的Peer-to-Peer环境下的Trust模型[J].软件学报,2004,15(4):571-583.
[91]高坚,张伟.多Agent系统中双边多指标自动协商的ACEA算法[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(6):1104-1108.
[92]郭庆,陈纯.基于整合效用的多议题协商优化[J].软件学报,2004,15(5):706-711.
[93]贺利坚,张伟.基于约束图分片求解DCOP的Agent组织结构[J].计算机研究与发展,2007,44(3).
[94]贺利坚,黄厚宽,张伟.多Agent系统中信任和信誉系统研究综述[J].计算机研究与发展,2008,45(7).
[95]胡宁,邹鹏,朱培栋.基于信誉机制的域间路由安全协同管理方法[J].软件学报.doi:10.3724/SP.J.1001.2009.03479,http://www.jos.org.cn/1000-9825/3479.htm
[96]胡山立,石纯一.Agent的意图模型[J].软件学报,2000,11(7):965-970.
[97]胡山立,石纯.Agent-BDI逻辑[J].软件学报,2000,11(10):1353-1360.
[98]胡山立,石纯一.一种任一时间联盟结构生成算法[J].软件学报,2001,12(05):729-734.
[99]胡山立,石纯一.给定限界要求的联盟结构生成[J].计算机学报,2001,24(11):1185-1190.
[100]胡山立,石纯一.Agent逻辑和真假子集语义[J].软件学报,2002,17(3):2112-2115.
[101]胡山立,石纯一.Agent意图的双子集语义改进模型[J].软件学报,2006,17(3):396-402.
[102]蒋建国,夏娜,齐美彬,小春梅.一种基于蚁群算法的多任务联盟串行生成算法[J].电子学报,2005,(12):2178-2182.
[103]金滓,石纯一.一种边际效用递减组合拍卖的胜者决定算法[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(07):1142-1148.
[104]金滓,石纯一.一种递增叫价的多属性拍卖方法[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(7):1135-1141.
[105]金滓,石纯一.一种暗标叫价的多属性拍卖方法[J].计算机学报,2006,29(1):145-152.
[106]金滓,石纯一.多活性级递增叫价组合拍卖方法[J].清华大学学报,2006,46(4).
[107]黎建兴,毛新军,束尧.软件Agent的一种面向对象设计模型[J].软件学报,2007,18(3):582-591.
[108]李景涛,荆一楠,肖晓春,王雪平,张根度.基于相似度加权推荐的P2P环境下的信任模型[J].软件学报,2007,18(1):157-167.
[109]李毅,石纯一.基于BDI的对手Agent模型[J].软件学报,2002,13(4):643-648.
[110]李毅,石纯一.对群体Agent的意图跟踪[J].软件学报,2002,13(7):1298-1302.
[111]刘惊雷,童向荣,张伟.一种快速构建最优联盟结构的方法[J].计算机工程与应用,2006,2(4):35-44.
[112]刘惊雷,张伟,范宝德,郑小鹏.角色分配格中的特异元[J].南京大学学报,2008,44(2).
[113]陆萍萍.多Agent系统中信任管理研究[D],硕士论文,扬州大学,2007年.
[114]罗杰文,史忠植,王茂光等.基于动态描述逻辑的多主体协作模型[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(8):1317-1322.
[115]马光伟,徐晋晖,石纯一.社会Agent的BDO模型[J].计算机学报,2001,24(5):521-528.
[116]彭冬生,林闯,刘卫东.一种直接评价节点诚信度的分布式信任机制[J].软件学报,2008,19(4):946-955.
[117]石纯一,张伟著.基于Agent的计算[D].中国计算机学会学术著作丛书,清华大学出版社,2007年4月.
[118]苏射雄,胡山立,林超峰,郑盛福.基于局部最优的联盟结构生成算法[J].计算机研究与发展,2007,44(2):277-281.
[119]唐文,胡建斌,陈钟.基于模糊逻辑的主观信任管理模型研究[J].计算机研究与发展,2005,2(10):1654-1659.
[120]童向荣,张伟.一种入侵检测系统的分布式多Agent通信机制[J].计算机工程与应用,2005,12.
[121]童向荣,张伟.动态联盟收益值的再励学习[J].计算机工程与应用,2006,6:85-87.
[122]童向荣,张伟.基于模糊盟友关系的多主体系统长期联盟[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(8):1445-1449.
[123]童向荣,张伟.基于信任和声誉的Agent组织信誉模型[J].计算机科学与探索,2007,1(3):325-330.
[124]童向荣,黄厚宽,张伟.Agent协商研究进展[J].计算机工程与应用,2007,32.
[125]童向荣,黄厚宽,张伟,Agent动态交互信任预测与行为异常检测模型[J],计算机研究与发展[J],2009,46(8):1364-1370.
[126]童向荣,黄厚宽,张伟.一种基于案例的Agent多议题协商模型[J].计算机研究与发展,2009,46(9).
[127]王立春,陈世福.多Agent多问题协商模型[J].软件学报,2002,13(8):1637-1643.
[128]王黎明,黄厚宽.一个基于多阶段的多Agent多问题协商框架[J].计算机研究与发展,2005,42(11):1849-1855.
[129]王黎明,黄厚宽,柴玉梅.基于信任和K臂赌博机问题选择多问题协商对象[J].软件学报,2006,17(12):2537-2546.
[130]王平.多Agent系统中的信任模型研究[D],硕士论文,西南师范大学,2005年.
[131]杨佩,高阳,陈兆乾.一种劝说式多Agent多议题协商方法[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(7):1149-1154.
[132]张洪,段海新,刘武.RRM:一种具有激励机制的信誉模型[J].中国科学E辑:信息科学,2008,38(10):1747-1759.
[133]张双民,石纯一.一种基于特征向量提取的FMDP模型求解方法[J].软件学报,2005,16(5).
[134]张双民,石纯一.基于群体Agent合作求解的测试床--MAS-Soccer[J].清华大学学报,2005,45(4).
[135]张伟,石纯一.Agent组织结构设计的一种形式语义[J].软件学报,2002,13(03):447-452.
[136]张伟,石纯一.Agent组织的一种递归模型[J].软件学报,2002,13(11):2149-2154.
[137]张伟,王一川,石纯一.一种基于资源约束的Agent组织规则生成机制[J].计算机研究与发展,2002,39(12):1592-1597.
[138]张伟,石纯一.Agent的组织承诺和小组承诺[J].软件学报,2003,14(03):473-478.
[139]张伟,王一川,石纯一.Agent组织规则的再励学习[J].计算机研究与发展,2003,40(3):430-434.
[140]张伟.面向Agent的软件工程研究进展[J].知识科学中的基本问题研究(刘大有主编),中国计算机学会学术著作丛书,清华大学出版社,2006年10月.
[141]张伟,高坚,贺利坚,童向荣,石纯一.Agent组织研究进展[J],计算机研究与发展,2006年8期(增刊):6-11.
[142]张新良,石纯一.M-POMOP模型及其划分求解算法[J].清华大学学报:自然科学版,2005,45(10).
[143]张新良,石纯一.基于描述逻辑的Agent组织[J].计算机研究与发展,2005,42(11):1843-1848.
[144]张新良,石纯一,对称和非对称的启发式多Agent再励学习方法[J].清华大学学报,2006,46(4).
[145]张新良,石纯一.多Agent联盟结构动态生成算法[J].软件学报,2007,18(3):574-581.
[2]Agotnes T.,Hock W.v.d.,Wooldridge M..On the Logic of Coalitional Games[C].(AAMAS'06),Hakodate,Japan,May 2006.
[3]Agotnes T.,Hoek W.v.d.,Wooldridge M..Temporal Qualitative Coalitional Games[C].(AAMAS'06),Hakodate,Japan,May 2006.
[4]Agotnes T.,Hock W.v.d.,Wooldridge M..Quantified Coalition Logic[C].IJCAI'07,Hyderabad,India,January 2007.
[5]An B.,Miao C.,Shen Z.,Market Based Resource Allocation with Incomplete Information[C],IJCAI'07,India,2007,pp.1193-1198.
[6]Ashri R.,Ramchurn S.D.,Sabater J.,Luck M.,Jennings N.R.,Trust Evaluation Through Relationship Analysis[C],AAMAS'05,Utrecht,Netherlands,July,2005.
[7]Beth T.,Borcherding M.,Klein B..Valuation of trust in open network[C].In:Gollmann D,ed.Proceedings of the European Symposium on Research in Security(ESORICS).Brighton:Springer-Verlag,1994.3-18.
[8]Blankenburg B.,Dash R.K.,Ramchurn S.D.,Klusch M.,Jennings N.R..Trusted Kernel-Based Coalition Formation[C].AAMAS'05,Utrecht,Netherlands,July 25-29,2005.
[9]Blaze M.,Feigenbaum J.,Lacy J..Decentralized trust management[C].In:Dale,J.,Dinolt,G.,eds.Proceedings of the 17~(th) Symposium on Security and Privacy.Oakland,CA:IEEE Computer Society Press,1996.164-173.
[10]Brandt F.,Sandholm T.,Shoham Y.,Spiteful Bidding in Sealed-Bid Auctions[C].IJCAI'07,India,2007,p.1207-1214.
[11]Candale T.,Sen S..Multi-Dimensional Bid Improvement Algorithm for Simultaneous Auctions[C],IJCAI'07,India,2007,p.1215-1220.
[12]Chevaleyre Y.,Reaching Envy-free States in Distributed Negotiation Settings[C],IJCAI'07,India,2007,p.1239-1244.
[13]Coehoorn R.M.,Jennings N.R..Learning an opponent's preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation tradeoffs[C],Proc.6th Int Conf.on E-Commerce,Delft,The Netherlands,59-68.2004.
[14]Conitzer V.,Sandholm T..Complexity of constructing solutions in the core based on synergies among coalitions[J],Artificial Intelligence,2006,170:607-619.
[15]Dang V.D.,Jennings N.R..Generating coalition structures with finite bound from the optimal guarantees[C],in:Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems(AAMAS'04),2004,pp.564-571.
[16]Dang V.D.,Dash R.K.,Rogers A.Jennings N.R..Overlapping Coalition Formation for Efficient Data Fusion in Multi-Sensor Networks[C],(AAAI'06),Boston,MA,July 2006.
[17]Dang V.D.,Jennings N.R..Coalition Structure Generation in Task-Based Settings[C].ECAI06.
[18]Etzioni O..Moving up the information food chain:deploying softbots on the World Wide Web[C].In proceedings of the 13~(th) National Conference on Artificial Intelligence(AAAI'96),Portlan,OR,1996,pp.4-8.
[19]Fatima S.S.,Wooldridge M.,Jennings N.R..Optimal agenda for Multi-issue Negotiation[C],AAMAS'03,Melbourne,Australia,2003,p.129-136.
[20]Fatima S.S.,Wooldridge M.,Jennings N.R..An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation[J].Artificial Intelligence,2004,152(1):1-45.
[21]Fatima S.S.,Wooldridge M.,Jennings N.R..Multi-Issue Negotiation with Deadlines[J],Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research(JAIR),2006,27:381-417.
[22]Faratin P.,Sierra C.,Jennings N.R..Using similarity criteria to make trade-offs in automated negotiations[J],Artificial Intelligence,2002,142(2):205-237.
[23] Gao J., Zhang W.. Multi-Agent Negotiation Optimization Based on Accelerating Chaos Search Method[C], ICCSE'2006, 2006.8.
[24] Gao J., Zhang W., Holon Based Self-Organization Evolution in MAS[C], DCABES'07, pp.768-771.
[25] Gao J., Zhang W.. Agent-Based Multi-Dimensional Trust Model in Grid Environments[C]. ICCSE'07, pp.691-695.
[26] Gatti N., Giunta F. D., Marino S.. Alternating-offers bargaining with one-sided uncertain deadlines: an efficient algorithm [J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2008,172:1119-1157.
[27] Gerding H., Rogers A., Dash R. K., Jennings N. R.. Sellers Competing for Buyers in Online Markets: Reserve Prices, Shill Bids, and Auction Fees[C], IJCI'07, India, 2007, p. 1287-1293.
[28] Griffiths N., Luck M.. Coalition Formation through Motivation and Trust[C], AAMAS'03,July 14-18,2003,Melbourne,Australia.
[29] He L., Huang H., Zhang W., Zhao K.. ALRS: agent based literature recommendation system[C]. Accepted by 2009 international workshop on intelligent systems and applications (ISA'09), Wuhan, China, May 2009.
[30] Holland A., Sullivan B. O., Truthful Risk-Managed Combinatorial Auctions[C], IJCAI'07, India, 2007, p. 1315-1320.
[31] Huynh T. D., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N. R.. Developing an Integrated Trust and Reputation Model for Open Multi-Agent Systems[C], AAMAS'04. New York, USA. July 19-23,2004.
[32] Huynh T. D., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N. R.. An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems[J]. Journal of autonomous Agent multi-agent system, 13, pp. 119-154,2006.
[33] Jennings N. R.. on agent-based software engineering[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2000, 117(2):277-296.
[34] Jennings N. R., Faratin P., Lomuscio A. R., et al.,, Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges[J]. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 2001, 10(2): 199-215.
[35] Josang A.. A model for trust in security systems[C]. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic Workshop on Secure Computer Systems. 1997.
[36] Josang A., Ismail R.. The beta reputation system[C]. In Proceedings of the 15th Bled Conference onElectronic Commerce, Bled, Slovenia, June 2002.
[37] Jesang A., Ismail R., Boyd C. A Survey of Trust and Reputation Systems for Online Service Provision [J]. Decision Support Systems, 2007,43(2): 618-644.
[38] Karunatillake N. C, Jennings N. R., Rahwan I., et al., Argument-based negotiation within a social context[C], Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, 74-88. 2005
[39] Kraus S. et al., Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2008,172(1): 1-18.
[40] Liau C. Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems—A modal logic formulation[J], Artificial Intelligence 149. pp. 31-60,2003.
[41] Lin R., Kraus S., Wilkenfeld J., Barry J.. Negotiating with Bounded Rational Agents in Environments with Incomplete Information Using an Automated Agent[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2008, 172(6-7): 823-851.
[42] Luo X., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N., etc, A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2003,148 (1-2): 53-102.
[43] Luo X., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N.. Acquiring user tradeoffs and preferences for negotiating agents: a default then adjust method, Journal of Human Computer Studies[J], 2006,64: 304-321.
[44] Manisterski E., Sarne D., Kraus S.. Enhancing MAS Cooperative Search Through Coalition Partitioning[C], IJCAI'07, India, 2007, p. 1415-1421.
[45] Mui L.. Computational model for trust and reputation: Agent, evolutionary games, social networks, [D]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, USA, 2003.
[46] Narayanan V., Jennings N. R.. Learning to Negotiate Optimally in Non-Stationary Environments[C]. CIA'06.
[47] Neumman J. V., Morgenstern O.. Theory of Games and Economics Behaviour[M]. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1944.
[48] Pratt J.W.. Risk aversion in the small and in the large [J]. Econometrica, 1964, 32:122-136.
[49] Rahwan T., Ramchurn S. D., Dang V. D., Jennings N. R.. Near-optimal anytime coalition structure generation[C]. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'07) in Hyderabad, India. 2007, pp. 2365-2371.
[50] Rahwan T., Ramchurn S. D., Giovannucci A., Dang V. D., Jennings N. R.. Anytime optimal coalition structure generation[C]. In Proceedings of the 22nd conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI'07) in Vancouver, Canada. 2007, pp. 1184-1190.
[51] Rahwan T., Jennings N. R.. An algorithm for distributing coalitional value calculations among cooperating agents[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171: 535-567.
[52] Rahwan T., Jennings N. R.. An improved dynamic programming algorithm for coalition structure generation[C]. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS'08), Portugal, 2008: 1417-1420,
[53] Ramchurn S. D., Jennings N. R., C. Sierra, Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: A rhetorical approach[C], IJCAI'03, Acapulco, Mexico, 9-17. 2003.
[54] Ramchurn S. D., Jennings N. R., Sierra C, Godo L., A Computational Trust Model for Multi-Agent Interactions based on Confidence and Reputation[C], AAMAS'04., New York, New York, USA, July, 2004.
[55] Ramchurn S. D., Sierra C, Godo L., Jennings N. R., Negotiating using rewards[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171: 805-837.
[56] Rao AS, Georgeff MP. Modeling rational agents within a BDI architecture[C]. In: Allen J, Fikes R, Sandewall E, eds. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. of the 2nd Int'l Conf. (KR-91). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1991, pp. 473-484.
[57] Rao AS, Georgeff MP. The semantics of intention maintenance for rational agents[C]. In: Mellish SC, ed. Proc. of the 14th Int'l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1995, pp. 704-710.
[58] Sabater, J., Sierra, C. Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies[C]. In Proceedings of the 4thWorkshoponDeception Fraud andTrust in AgentSocieties, 2001, pp. 61-70.
[59] Saha S., Sen S., An Efficient Protocol for Negotiation over Multiple Indivisible Resources[C], IJCAI'07, India, 2007, pp. 1494-1499.
[60] Sandholm, T. and Lesser, V. Coalitions among Computationally Bounded Agent[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1), 1997 Special issue on Economic Principles of MultiAgent Systems, pp. 99-137.
[61] Sandholm, T., Larson, K., anderson, M.,Shehory, O., and Tohme, F., coalition Structure Generation with Worst Case Guarantees[J], Artificial Intelligence, 1999, 111(1-2): 209-238.
[62] Sandholm T., Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2002, 135: 1-54.
[63] Sandholm T., Suri S., BOB: Improved winner determination in combinatorial auctions and generalizations[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2003,145: 33-58.
[64] Schwartz D. G.. Agent-oriented epistemic reasoning: Subjective conditions of knowledge and belief[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2003, 148: 177-195.
[65] Sen S., Dutta P.. Searching for optimal coalition structures[C]. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, 2000, pp. 286-292.
[66] Sen S.. Believing others: Pros and cons[J], Artificial Intelligence, 2002, 142: 179-203.
[67] Shehory O., Kraus S., Task allocation via coalition formation among autonomous Agents [C], in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'95), 1995, pp. 655-661.
[68] Shehory O., Kraus S.. Methods for task allocation via Agent coalition formation [J], Artificial Intelligence, 1998, 101(1-2): 165-200.
[69] Teacy W. T. L., Patel J., Jennings N. R., Luck M.. Coping with Inaccurate Reputation Sources: Experimental Analysis of a Probabilistic Trust Model[C], AAMAS'05, July 25-29, 2005, Utrecht, Netherlands.
[70]Teacy W.T.L.,Patel J.,Jennings N.R.,Luck M..TRAVOS:Trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources[J],Journal of autonomous Agent multi-agent system,2006,12:183-198.
[71]Tong X.,Zhang W.,Agent multi-issue negotiation with cases[C].The 5th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery(FSKD'08),Jinan,2008,pp.96-100.
[72]Tong X.,Huang H.,Zhang W..Agent long-term coalition credit[J].Expert systems with applications,2009,36(5):9457-9465.
[73]Tong X.,Huang H.,Zhang W..Group trust and group reputation[C].ICNC'09,2009.
[74]Turing A.M.Computing machinery and intelligence[J].In Computer and thought(ed.E.A.Feigenbaum).McGraw-Hill,1963.
[75]Vassileva J.,Breban S.,Horsch M.,Agent Reasoning Mechanism for Long-Term Coalitions Based on Decision Making and Trust[J],Computational Intelligence,2002,18(4):583-595.
[76]Wooldridge M.,Jennings N.R.Intelligent agents:theory and practice[J].The Knowledge Engineering Review,1995,10(2):115-152.
[77]Wooldridge M.An introduction to multi-agent systems[M].2002,John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
[78]Wooldridge M.,Dunne P.E.,On the computational complexity of qualitative coalitional games[J],Artificial Intelligence,2004,158:27-73.
[79]Wooldridge M.,Dunne P.E..On the Computational Complexity of Coalitional Resource Games[J].Artificial Intelligence,2006,170(10):835-871.
[80]Wu X.,Fan B.,Zhang W.,Study on Performance Improving for Resource Management of Computational Grid Based upon AT[C],Watam Press,2006,5.
[81]Yokoo M.,Sakurai Y.,Matsubara S.,Robust combinatorial auction protocol against False-name Bids[C],In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.2000,110-115.
[82]Yokoo M.,Sakurai Y.,Matsubara S.,Bundle design in robust combinatorial auction protocol against False-name Bids[C],In Proceeding of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,2001:1095-1101.
[83]Yokoo M.,Sakurai Y.,Matsubara S.,The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions:new fraud in internet auctions[J],Games and Economic Behavior.2004,46(1):174-188.
[84]Yu B.,Singh P.Detecting deception in reputation management[C].In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems,Melbourne,Australia,July 2003.ACM Press,pp.73-80.
[85]Zhang D.M.,Wong W.Y..A Web-Based Negotiation Agent Using CBR[C].PRICAI Workshops,Melbourne,Australia,2000:183-198.
[86]Zhu F.,Guan J.,et al.An Automatic Negotiation Method Based on CBR and Agent Reasoning[C],Proceedings of CIT'05,Shanghai,China,2005:1019-1025.
[87]常志明,毛新军,齐治昌.基于Agent的网构软件构件模型及其实现[J].软件学报,2008,19(05):1113-1124.
[88]常志明,毛新军,王戟,齐治昌.多Agent系统中软构件的动态绑定机制及其操作语义[J].计算机研究与发展,2007,44(5):806-814.
[89]董明楷,张海俊,史忠植.基于动态描述逻辑的主体模型[J].计算机研究与发展,2004,41(5):780-786
[90]窦文,王怀民,贾焰,邹鹏.构造基于推荐的Peer-to-Peer环境下的Trust模型[J].软件学报,2004,15(4):571-583.
[91]高坚,张伟.多Agent系统中双边多指标自动协商的ACEA算法[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(6):1104-1108.
[92]郭庆,陈纯.基于整合效用的多议题协商优化[J].软件学报,2004,15(5):706-711.
[93]贺利坚,张伟.基于约束图分片求解DCOP的Agent组织结构[J].计算机研究与发展,2007,44(3).
[94]贺利坚,黄厚宽,张伟.多Agent系统中信任和信誉系统研究综述[J].计算机研究与发展,2008,45(7).
[95]胡宁,邹鹏,朱培栋.基于信誉机制的域间路由安全协同管理方法[J].软件学报.doi:10.3724/SP.J.1001.2009.03479,http://www.jos.org.cn/1000-9825/3479.htm
[96]胡山立,石纯一.Agent的意图模型[J].软件学报,2000,11(7):965-970.
[97]胡山立,石纯.Agent-BDI逻辑[J].软件学报,2000,11(10):1353-1360.
[98]胡山立,石纯一.一种任一时间联盟结构生成算法[J].软件学报,2001,12(05):729-734.
[99]胡山立,石纯一.给定限界要求的联盟结构生成[J].计算机学报,2001,24(11):1185-1190.
[100]胡山立,石纯一.Agent逻辑和真假子集语义[J].软件学报,2002,17(3):2112-2115.
[101]胡山立,石纯一.Agent意图的双子集语义改进模型[J].软件学报,2006,17(3):396-402.
[102]蒋建国,夏娜,齐美彬,小春梅.一种基于蚁群算法的多任务联盟串行生成算法[J].电子学报,2005,(12):2178-2182.
[103]金滓,石纯一.一种边际效用递减组合拍卖的胜者决定算法[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(07):1142-1148.
[104]金滓,石纯一.一种递增叫价的多属性拍卖方法[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(7):1135-1141.
[105]金滓,石纯一.一种暗标叫价的多属性拍卖方法[J].计算机学报,2006,29(1):145-152.
[106]金滓,石纯一.多活性级递增叫价组合拍卖方法[J].清华大学学报,2006,46(4).
[107]黎建兴,毛新军,束尧.软件Agent的一种面向对象设计模型[J].软件学报,2007,18(3):582-591.
[108]李景涛,荆一楠,肖晓春,王雪平,张根度.基于相似度加权推荐的P2P环境下的信任模型[J].软件学报,2007,18(1):157-167.
[109]李毅,石纯一.基于BDI的对手Agent模型[J].软件学报,2002,13(4):643-648.
[110]李毅,石纯一.对群体Agent的意图跟踪[J].软件学报,2002,13(7):1298-1302.
[111]刘惊雷,童向荣,张伟.一种快速构建最优联盟结构的方法[J].计算机工程与应用,2006,2(4):35-44.
[112]刘惊雷,张伟,范宝德,郑小鹏.角色分配格中的特异元[J].南京大学学报,2008,44(2).
[113]陆萍萍.多Agent系统中信任管理研究[D],硕士论文,扬州大学,2007年.
[114]罗杰文,史忠植,王茂光等.基于动态描述逻辑的多主体协作模型[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(8):1317-1322.
[115]马光伟,徐晋晖,石纯一.社会Agent的BDO模型[J].计算机学报,2001,24(5):521-528.
[116]彭冬生,林闯,刘卫东.一种直接评价节点诚信度的分布式信任机制[J].软件学报,2008,19(4):946-955.
[117]石纯一,张伟著.基于Agent的计算[D].中国计算机学会学术著作丛书,清华大学出版社,2007年4月.
[118]苏射雄,胡山立,林超峰,郑盛福.基于局部最优的联盟结构生成算法[J].计算机研究与发展,2007,44(2):277-281.
[119]唐文,胡建斌,陈钟.基于模糊逻辑的主观信任管理模型研究[J].计算机研究与发展,2005,2(10):1654-1659.
[120]童向荣,张伟.一种入侵检测系统的分布式多Agent通信机制[J].计算机工程与应用,2005,12.
[121]童向荣,张伟.动态联盟收益值的再励学习[J].计算机工程与应用,2006,6:85-87.
[122]童向荣,张伟.基于模糊盟友关系的多主体系统长期联盟[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(8):1445-1449.
[123]童向荣,张伟.基于信任和声誉的Agent组织信誉模型[J].计算机科学与探索,2007,1(3):325-330.
[124]童向荣,黄厚宽,张伟.Agent协商研究进展[J].计算机工程与应用,2007,32.
[125]童向荣,黄厚宽,张伟,Agent动态交互信任预测与行为异常检测模型[J],计算机研究与发展[J],2009,46(8):1364-1370.
[126]童向荣,黄厚宽,张伟.一种基于案例的Agent多议题协商模型[J].计算机研究与发展,2009,46(9).
[127]王立春,陈世福.多Agent多问题协商模型[J].软件学报,2002,13(8):1637-1643.
[128]王黎明,黄厚宽.一个基于多阶段的多Agent多问题协商框架[J].计算机研究与发展,2005,42(11):1849-1855.
[129]王黎明,黄厚宽,柴玉梅.基于信任和K臂赌博机问题选择多问题协商对象[J].软件学报,2006,17(12):2537-2546.
[130]王平.多Agent系统中的信任模型研究[D],硕士论文,西南师范大学,2005年.
[131]杨佩,高阳,陈兆乾.一种劝说式多Agent多议题协商方法[J].计算机研究与发展,2006,43(7):1149-1154.
[132]张洪,段海新,刘武.RRM:一种具有激励机制的信誉模型[J].中国科学E辑:信息科学,2008,38(10):1747-1759.
[133]张双民,石纯一.一种基于特征向量提取的FMDP模型求解方法[J].软件学报,2005,16(5).
[134]张双民,石纯一.基于群体Agent合作求解的测试床--MAS-Soccer[J].清华大学学报,2005,45(4).
[135]张伟,石纯一.Agent组织结构设计的一种形式语义[J].软件学报,2002,13(03):447-452.
[136]张伟,石纯一.Agent组织的一种递归模型[J].软件学报,2002,13(11):2149-2154.
[137]张伟,王一川,石纯一.一种基于资源约束的Agent组织规则生成机制[J].计算机研究与发展,2002,39(12):1592-1597.
[138]张伟,石纯一.Agent的组织承诺和小组承诺[J].软件学报,2003,14(03):473-478.
[139]张伟,王一川,石纯一.Agent组织规则的再励学习[J].计算机研究与发展,2003,40(3):430-434.
[140]张伟.面向Agent的软件工程研究进展[J].知识科学中的基本问题研究(刘大有主编),中国计算机学会学术著作丛书,清华大学出版社,2006年10月.
[141]张伟,高坚,贺利坚,童向荣,石纯一.Agent组织研究进展[J],计算机研究与发展,2006年8期(增刊):6-11.
[142]张新良,石纯一.M-POMOP模型及其划分求解算法[J].清华大学学报:自然科学版,2005,45(10).
[143]张新良,石纯一.基于描述逻辑的Agent组织[J].计算机研究与发展,2005,42(11):1843-1848.
[144]张新良,石纯一,对称和非对称的启发式多Agent再励学习方法[J].清华大学学报,2006,46(4).
[145]张新良,石纯一.多Agent联盟结构动态生成算法[J].软件学报,2007,18(3):574-581.