UNCERTAINTY-BASED TRUST ESTIMATION IN A MULTI-VALUED TRUST ENVIRONMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widespread usage of the evaluation mediums for online services by the clients, there is a requirement for a trust evaluation tool that provides the clients with the degree of trustworthiness of the service providers. Such a tool can provide increased familiarity with unknown third party entities, e.g. service providers, especially when those entities neither project completely trustworthy nor totally untrustworthy behaviour. Indeed, developing some metrics for trust evaluation under uncertainty can come handy, e.g., for customers interested in evaluating the trustworthiness of an unknown service provider throughout queries to other customers of unknown reliability. In this research, we propose an evaluation metric to estimate the degree of trustworthiness of an unknown agent, say aD, through the information acquired through a group of agents who have interacted with agent aD. This group of agents is assumed to have an unknown degree of reliability. In order to tackle the uncertainty associated with the trust of these set of unknown agents, we suggest to use possibility distributions. Later, we introduce a new certainty metric to measure the degree of agreement in the information reported by the group of agents in A on agent aD. Fusion rules are then used to measure an estimation of the agent aD’s degree of trustworthiness. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that estimates trust, out of empirical data, subject to some uncertainty, in a discrete multi-valued trust domain. Finally, numerical experiments are presented to validate the proposed tools and metrics.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".