Smart cheaters do prosper: defeating trust and reputation systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traders in electronic marketplaces may behave dishonestly, cheating other agents. A multitude of trust and reputation systems have been proposed to try to cope with the problem of cheating. These systems are often evaluated by measuring their performance against simple agents that cheat randomly. Unfortunately, these systems are not often evaluated from the perspective of security—can a motivated attacker defeat the protection? Previously, it was argued that existing systems may suffer from vulnerabilities that permit effective, profitable cheating despite the use of the system. In this work, we experimentally substantiate the presence of these vulnerabilities by successfully implementing and testing a number of such ‘attacks’, which consist only of sequences of sales (honest and dishonest) that can be executed in the system. This investigation also reveals two new, previously-unnoted cheating techniques. Our success in executing these attacks compellingly makes a key point: security must be a central design goal for developers of trust and reputation systems. 1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it