MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1565356825

Towards con-resistant trust models for distributed agent systems

2009· article· en· W1565356825 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationRegretComputer scienceScheme (mathematics)Focus (optics)Computer securityMachine learningMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial societies – distributed systems of au-tonomous agents – are becoming increasingly im-portant in e-commerce. Agents base their decisions on trust and reputation in ways analogous to hu-man societies. Many different definitions for trust and reputation have been proposed that incorporate many sources of information; however, system de-signs have tended to focus much of their attention on direct interactions. Furthermore, trust updat-ing schemes for direct interactions have tended to uncouple updates for positive and negative feed-back. Consequently, behaviour in which cycles of positive feedback followed by a single negative feedback results in untrustworthy agents remain-ing undetected. This con-man style of behaviour is formally described and desirable characteristics of con-resistant trust schemes proposed. A con-resistant scheme is proposed and compared with

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207