journal article·2025-04-15Open access

Transparent Task Delegation in Multi-Agent Systems Using the QuAD-V Framework

Jeferson José Baqueta, Mariela Morveli-Espinoza, Cesar Augusto Tacla

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 8

Abstract

Task delegation in multi-agent systems (MASs) is crucial for ensuring efficient collaboration among agents with different capabilities and skills. Traditional delegation models rely on social mechanisms such as trust and reputation to evaluate potential partners. While these approaches are effective in selecting competent agents, they often lack transparency, making it difficult for users to understand and trust the decision-making process. To address this limitation, we propose a novel task delegation model that integrates explainability through argumentation-based reasoning. Our approach employs the quantitative argumentation with votes framework (QuAD-V), a voting-based argumentation system that enables agents to justify their partner selection. We evaluate our model in a scenario involving the distribution of petroleum products via pipelines, where agents represent bases capable of temporarily storing a quantity of product. The connections between agents represent transportation routes, allowing the product to be sent from an origin to a destination base. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of our model in optimizing delegation decisions while maintaining clear, understandable explanations for agents’ decisions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Auction Theory and Applications · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Elétrica e Informática Industrial, Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Curitiba 80230-901, Brazil

Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Arequipa 04000, Peru

Funding

CNPq

References (45)

Show source-provided references
1. Griffiths, N. (2005, January 25–29). Task delegation using experience-based multi-dimensional trust. Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands.10.1145/1082473.1082548 ↗
2. Cantucci, F., Falcone, R., and Castelfranchi, C. (2019, January 26–28). A Computational Model for Cognitive Human-Robot Interaction: An Approach Based on Theory of Delegation. Proceedings of the WOA, Parma, Italy.
3. Reliability in Internet of Things: Current status and future perspectives10.1109/JIOT.2020.2993216 ↗
4. A review of Internet of Things (IoT) embedded sustainable supply chain for industry 4.0 requirements10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.030 ↗
5. Cui, Y., Idota, H., and Ota, M. (2019, January 9–10). Improving supply chain resilience with implementation of new system architecture. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Social Implications of Technology (SIT) and Information Management (SITIM), Matsuyama, Japan.10.1109/SITIM.2019.8910226 ↗
6. Multirobot coordination for space exploration
7. Sabater, J., and Sierra, C. (June, January 28). REGRET: Reputation in gregarious societies. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, QC, Canada.
8. Huynh, T.D., Jennings, N.R., and Shadbolt, N. (2004, January 22–27). FIRE: An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Valencia, Spain.
9. Castelfranchi, C., and Falcone, R. (2010). Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470519851 ↗
10. Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: A review10.1007/s10462-011-9277-z ↗
11. A survey on trust modeling10.1145/2815595 ↗
12. Algorithms for recursive delegation10.3233/AIC-190616 ↗
13. Repage: Reputation and image among limited autonomous partners
14. Castelfranchi, C., and Falcone, R. (2020). Trust: Perspectives in Cognitive Science. The Routledge Handbook of Trust and Philosophy, Routledge.10.4324/9781315542294-17 ↗
15. Fuzzy cognitive maps10.1016/S0020-7373(86)80040-2 ↗
16. Increasing transparency in algorithmic-decision-making with explainable AI10.1007/s11623-018-1011-4 ↗
17. The role of explainability in AI-supported medical decision-making10.1007/s44163-024-00119-2 ↗
18. Human centricity in the relationship between explainability and trust in AI10.1109/MTS.2023.3340238 ↗
19. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). Why Should I Trust You? Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
20. Miller, T. (2019, January 4–9). Explainable AI: A Review of the State of the Art. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Scotland, UK.
21. The Ethical and Legal Implications of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
22. Trustworthy ai: A computational perspective
23. Binns, S. (2016). Artificial Intelligence in Critical Systems: Ethical Implications, Springer.
24. The Ethical Implications of Automated Decision-Making in Autonomous Vehicles
25. Ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles: The AV ethics project10.1007/s11948-020-00272-8 ↗
26. Čyras, K., Rago, A., Albini, E., Baroni, P., and Toni, F. (2021). Argumentative XAI: A survey. arXiv.10.24963/ijcai.2021/600 ↗
27. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X ↗
28. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5 ↗
29. The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: A tutorial10.1080/19462166.2013.869766 ↗
30. Formalizing dialectical explanation support for argument-based reasoning in knowledge-based systems10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.036 ↗
31. Rago, A., and Toni, F. (2017). Quantitative argumentation debates with votes for opinion polling. Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, Nice, France, 30 October–3 November 2017, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_22 ↗
32. Cayrol, C., and Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C. (2005). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, Barcelona, Spain, 6–8 July 2005, Springer.10.1007/11518655_33 ↗
33. Conte, R., and Paolucci, M. (2003, January 13–17). Social cognitive factors of unfair ratings in reputation reporting systems. Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI 2003), Halifax, NS, Canada.
34. Cantucci, F., Falcone, R., and Castelfranchi, C. (2021, January 3–7). Robot’s self-trust as precondition for being a good collaborator. Proceedings of the TRUST@ AAMAS, London, UK.
35. Conte, R., and Paolucci, M. (2002). Reputation in Artificial Societies: Social Beliefs for Social Order, Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-1-4615-1159-5 ↗
36. Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation10.1080/19462166.2014.1001791 ↗
37. Rago, A., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., and Baroni, P. (2016, January 25–29). Discontinuity-free decision support with quantitative argumentation debates. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cape Town, South Africa.
38. Contextuality, incompatibility and biased inference in a quantum-like formulation of computational trust10.1142/S0219525914500209 ↗
39. Botelho, V., Kredens, K.V., Martins, J.V., Ávila, B.C., and Scalabrin, E.E. (2018, January 9–11). Dossier: Decentralized trust model towards a decentralized demand. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), Nanjing, China.10.1109/CSCWD.2018.8465141 ↗
40. Experimenting with certified reputation in a competitive multi-agent scenario10.1109/MIS.2015.98 ↗
41. An application of a multi-agent auction-based protocol to the tactical planning of oil product transport in the Brazilian multimodal network10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.06.007 ↗
42. Baqueta, J.J., and Tacla, C.A. (2024). Explaining Task Delegation Through Argumentation Debates with Votes. Proceedings of the Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montevideo, Uruguay, 16–15 November 2024, Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-80366-6_31 ↗
43. Sutton, R.S., and Barto, A.G. (2018). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, MIT Press.
44. Garivier, A., and Moulines, E. (2011). On upper-confidence bound policies for switching bandit problems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Espoo, Finland, 5–7 October 2011, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-24412-4_16 ↗
45. An empirical evaluation of thompson sampling