Bayesian reputation modeling in E-marketplaces sensitive to subjecthity, deception and change
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
We present a model for buying agents in e-marketplaces to interpret evaluations of sellers provided by other buying agents, known as advisors. The interpretation of seller evaluations is complicated by the inherent subjectivity of each advisor, the possibility that advisors may deliberately provide misleading evaluations to deceive competitors and the dynamic nature of seller and advisor behaviours that may naturally change seller evaluations over time. Using a Bayesian approach, we demonstrate how to cope with subjectivity, deception and change in a principled way. More specifically, by modeling seller properties and advisor evaluation functions as dynamic random variables, buyers can progressively learn a probabilistic model that naturally and correctly calibrates the interpretation of seller evaluations without having to resort to heuristics to explicitely detect and filter/discount unreliable seller evaluations. Our model, called BLADE, is shown empirically to achieve lower mean error in the estimation of seller properties when compared to other models for reasoning about advisor ratings of sellers in electronic maketplaces.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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