Reputation Formalization for an Information–Sharing Multi–Agent System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose that through the formalization of concepts related to trust, a more accurate model of trust can be implemented. This paper presents a new model of trust that is based on the formalization of reputation. A multidisciplinary approach is taken to understanding the nature of trust and its relation to reputation. Through this approach, a practical definition of reputation is adopted from sociological contexts and a model of reputation is designed and presented. Reputation is defined as role fulfillment. To formalize reputation, it is necessary to formalize the expectations placed upon an agent within a particular multi–agent system (MAS). In this case, the agents are part of an information–sharing society. Five roles are defined along with the ways in which these roles are objectively fulfilled. Through the measurement of role fulfillment, a vector representing reputation can be developed. This vector embodies the magnitude of the reputation and describes the patterns of behavior associated with the direction of the vector. Experiments are conducted to verify the sensibility of the proposed models for role fulfillment and overall reputation. The simulation results show that the roles, defined for building reputation in an information–sharing MAS environment, react to different agent and user actions in a manner consistent with the formal definitions.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".