Trusting advice from other buyers in e-marketplaces
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
In electronic marketplaces populated by self-interested agents, buyer agents would benefit by modeling the reputation of seller agents, in order to make effective decisions about which agents to trust. One method for representing reputation is to ask other agents in the system (called advisor agents) to provide ratings of the seller agents. The problem of unfair ratings exists in almost every reputation system, including both unfairly high and unfairly low ratings. We begin by surveying some existing approaches to this problem, characterizing their capabilities and categorizing them in terms of two main dimensions: public-private and global-local. The impact of reputation system architectures on approach selection is also discussed. Based on the study, we propose a novel personalized approach for effectively handling unfair ratings in an enhanced centralized reputation system. Experimental results demonstrate that the approach effectively adjusts the trustworthiness of advisor agents according to the percentages of unfair ratings provided by them. We then argue for the merits of our model as the basis for designing social networks to share reputation ratings of sellers in electronic marketplaces.
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) | 0.003 | 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