TRUST BY ASSOCIATION: A META‐REPUTATION SYSTEM FOR PEER‐TO‐PEER NETWORKS
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
Trust mechanisms are used in peer‐to‐peer (P2P) networks to help well‐behaving peers find other well‐behaving peers with which to trade. Unfortunately, these trust mechanisms often do little to keep badly behaving peers from entering and taking advantage of the network, which makes the resulting network difficult or impossible to use for legitimate purposes such as e‐commerce. We propose trust by association , a way of tying peers together in invitation‐only P2P networks in such a way as to encourage the removal of badly behaving peers. We use invitations to create a structure within the otherwise ad hoc P2P network. Using this structure, we create a meta‐reputation system where we measure a peer’s trustworthiness not only by its own behavior, but also by the behavior of the peers it has invited to join. The connection created between the peers takes advantage of the external social relationship that must exist before a peer can be invited into the network. The result is a P2P network where, rather than just trying to marginalize badly behaving peers, there is incentive to kick them out of the network. We present results from a simple simulation showing that our approach works well in general when combined with and compared to an existing trust mechanism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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