An Agent-Based Simulation Approach to Comparative Analysis of Enforcement Mechanisms

Incentive-based enforcement can be an effective mechanism for fostering cooperation in open distributed systems. The strength of such systems is the absence of a central controlling instance, but at the same time, they do depend upon (voluntary) regulation to achieve system goals, creating a potential "tragedy of the commons". Many different mechanisms have been proposed, both in the multi-agent systems and the social science communities, to solve the commons problem by using incentive-based enforcement. This paper advocates the use of agent-based simulation to carry out detailed comparative analysis of competing enforcement mechanisms, by providing common settings, the environment and the basis for comprehensive statistical analysis. To advance this argument, we take the case study of wireless mobile grids, a future generation mobile phone concept, to ground our experiments and analyse three different enforcement approaches: police entities, image information and a well-known existing reputation mechanism. The contribution of this paper is not the enforcement mechanisms themselves, but their comparison in a common setting through which we demonstrate by simulation and statistical analysis that enforcement can improve cooperation and that a relatively small percentage (of the population as a whole) of police agents outperforms (under the chosen metrics) image- and reputation-based approaches. Hence, qualified conclusions may be drawn for the application of such mechanisms generally in open distributed systems.

[1]  Mario Paolucci,et al.  Reputation in Artificial Societies , 2002, Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations.

[2]  Carles Sierra,et al.  Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[3]  Frank H. P. Fitzek,et al.  Energy Saving Aspects for Mobile Device Exploiting Heterogeneous Wireless Networks , 2008 .

[4]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.

[5]  Jason Liu,et al.  Experimental evaluation of wireless simulation assumptions , 2004, MSWiM '04.

[6]  Marina De Vos,et al.  Analysing energy-incentivized cooperation in next generation mobile networks using normative frameworks and an agent-based simulation , 2011, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[7]  E. Ostrom COPING WITH TRAGEDIES OF THE COMMONS , 1999 .

[8]  J. Coleman Foundations of Social Theory , 1990 .

[9]  Axel Ockenfels,et al.  Evolutionary Norm Enforcement , 2000 .

[10]  G. Brady Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action , 1993 .

[11]  Stephen Hailes,et al.  Supporting trust in virtual communities , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[12]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[13]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Human Cognition and Social Agent Technology , 2000 .

[14]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Free-riding and whitewashing in peer-to-peer systems , 2004, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[15]  Farhad Arbab,et al.  Coordination Models and Languages , 1998, Adv. Comput..

[16]  Adam Wierzbicki,et al.  Deconstructing the Kazaa network , 2003, Proceedings the Third IEEE Workshop on Internet Applications. WIAPP 2003.

[17]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems IX: COIN 2013 International Workshops, COIN@AAMAS, St. Paul, MN, USA, May 6, 2013, COIN@PRIMA, Dunedin, New Zealand, December 3, 2013, Revised Selected Papers , 2014, COIN@AAMAS/PRIMA.

[18]  Axel Ockenfels,et al.  The Coevolution of Trust and Institutions in Anonymous and Non-anonymous Communities , 2002 .

[19]  Marc Esteva,et al.  On the Formal Specifications of Electronic Institutions , 2001, AgentLink.

[20]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  9. The Role of Evaluation in Cognition and Social Interaction , 2000 .

[21]  Adrián Perreau De Pinninck Bas Techniques for peer norm enforcement in multiagent networks , 2010 .

[22]  Marc Esteva,et al.  On the formal specification of electronic institutions , 2001 .

[23]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power , 1996, Log. J. IGPL.

[24]  David G. Rand,et al.  Winners don’t punish , 2008, Nature.

[25]  E. Fehr,et al.  Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments , 1999, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[26]  Petri Mähönen,et al.  Analytical Model of Cooperation in Ad Hoc Networks , 2004, Telecommun. Syst..

[27]  B. Rockenbach,et al.  The Competitive Advantage of Sanctioning Institutions , 2006, Science.

[28]  Tina Balke,et al.  Operationalization of the Sanctioning Process in Hedonic Societies , 2011 .

[29]  Thu D. Nguyen,et al.  Enforcement of Communal Policies for P2P Systems , 2004, COORDINATION.

[30]  Tina Balke,et al.  Operationalization of the Sanctioning Process in Utilitarian Artificial Societies , 2011, COIN@AAMAS&WI-IAT.

[31]  Jordi Sabater,et al.  Trust and reputation for agent societies , 2003 .

[32]  Hong Hong,et al.  Human Cognition and Social Agent Technology , 2001, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[33]  Frank H. P. Fitzek,et al.  Cellular Controlled Peer to Peer Communications: Overview and Potentials , 2007 .

[34]  J. Sabater-Mir,et al.  Trust and reputation for agent societies , 2002 .