DART: A DISTRIBUTED ANALYSIS OF REPUTATION AND TRUST FRAMEWORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial societies—distributed systems of autonomous agents—are becoming increasingly important in open distributed environments, especially in e‐commerce. Agents require trust and reputation concepts to identify communities of agents with which to interact reliably. We have noted in real environments that adversaries tend to focus on exploitation of the trust and reputation model. These vulnerabilities reinforce the need for new evaluation criteria for trust and reputation models called exploitation resistance which reflects the ability of a trust model to be unaffected by agents who try to manipulate the trust model. To examine whether a given trust and reputation model is exploitation‐resistant, the researchers require a flexible, easy‐to‐use, and general framework. This framework should provide the facility to specify heterogeneous agents with different trust models and behaviors. This paper introduces a Distributed Analysis of Reputation and Trust (DART) framework. The environment of DART is decentralized and game‐theoretic. Not only is the proposed environment model compatible with the characteristics of open distributed systems, but it also allows agents to have different types of interactions in this environment model. Besides direct, witness, and introduction interactions, agents in our environment model can have a type of interaction called a reporting interaction, which represents a decentralized reporting mechanism in distributed environments. The proposed environment model provides various metrics at both micro and macro levels for analyzing the implemented trust and reputation models. Using DART, researchers have empirically demonstrated the vulnerability of well‐known trust models against both individual and group attacks.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".