Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
In the case (4) if
(U(X)
d
+
−
σ
d
)
>
(U(X)
p
+
−
σ
d
)
then the choice will be 'to do by itself'
and vice versa in the opposite case (the choice is the minor damage).
In the cases (3) and (4) if (
σ
a
−
(
U(X)
p
+
−
σ
d
) then will the equation (3.5) be the one that will decide what is the right choice.
U(X)
d
+
)
=
(
σ
a
−
U(X)
p
+
) and (
U(X)
d
+
−
σ
d
)
=
3.6 Generalizing the Trust Decision to a Set of Agents
It is possible to determine a trust choice starting from each combination of credibility degrees
-
with
Ag
i
∈
{
...
- of the main beliefs included in Core-Trust and
Reliance of
Ag
1
, and from a set of
Ag
1
's
utilities
{
DoT
Ag1, Agi,
τ
}
Ag
1
,
,Ag
n
}
U
p
+
,U
p
−
,U
di
+
,U
di
−
,U
0
}
=
{
U(Ag
1
)
, with
i
∈
{
...
.
It is possible that - once fixed the set of utilities and the kind and degree of control - different
combinations of credibility degrees of the main beliefs produce the same choice. However, in
general,
changing the credibility degree of some beliefs should change the final choice about
the delegation
(and the same holds for the utilities and for the control).
So, if we suppose we have a set constituted by:
2,
,n
}
DoT
Ag1,Agi,
τ
}
and
U(Ag
1
)
, we will have,
{
as a consequence, the delegation
Kind
0
Delegates(Ag
1
Ag
i
τ
0
) with
Ag
i
∈
{
Ag
2
,
...
,Ag
n
}
,
and
14
.
Kind
0
Delegates
∈
{
Performs, Weak-Delegates, Mild-Delegates, Strong-Delegates, Nothing
}
and/or a new set of utilities.
In Chapter 7 (about the delegation adjustments) we will see how, in order to adjust a given
delegation/adoption, it is necessary for the agent to have specific reasons, that is new beliefs
and goals. What, in fact, this means, is simply that:
At a different time we might have a new set
DoT
Ag1,Agi,
τ
}
{
the delegator's mental state has changed in at least one of its components in such a way that
the action to choose is different from the previous one; or
the delegee's level of self-trust or the delegee's trust in the environment has changed, and
there is some disagreement with
the delegator
about this.
At the same time the new sets of beliefs and utilities might suggest various possible strategies
of recovery of the trust situation: i.e. given
Kind
0
Delegates(Ag
1
Ag
i
),
DoT
Ag1,Agi,
τ
and
U(Ag
1
)
we might have an adjustment of
Kind
0
Delegates
(for example from
Weak-Delegates
to
Strong-Delegates
).
This adjustment reflects a modification in the mental ingredients. More precisely, the
trustor/delegator either
updates or revises
their delegation beliefs and goals, i.e.:
τ
either she revises its
core trust beliefs
about
the trustee/delegee
(the latter's goals, capabilities,
opportunities, willingness);
or she revises its
reliance beliefs
about: i) her dependence on
the trustee/delegee
, or ii) her
preference to delegate to
trustee/delegee
than to do it herself, or to delegate to
Ag
3
(a third
agent) or to renounce the goal;
or she changes her risk
policy
and more or less likely she accepts the estimated risk (this
means that the trustor changes either her set of utilities (
U(Ag
1
)) or her set of thresholds.
14
For the meaning of
We a k
,
Mild
and
Strong Delegation
see Chapter 2.
Perform
means that the trustor does not
delegate but personally performs the task.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search