A framework for trust modeling in multiagent electronic marketplaces with buying advisors to consider varying seller behavior and the limiting of seller bids
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 this article, we present a framework of use in electronic marketplaces that allows buying agents to model the trustworthiness of selling agents in an effective way, making use of seller ratings provided by other buying agents known as advisors. The trustworthiness of the advisors is also modeled, using an approach that combines both personal and public knowledge and allows the relative weighting to be adjusted over time. Through a series of experiments that simulate e-marketplaces, including ones where sellers may vary their behavior over time, we are able to demonstrate that our proposed framework delivers effective seller recommendations to buyers, resulting in important buyer profit. We also propose limiting seller bids as a method for promoting seller honesty, thus facilitating successful selection of sellers by buyers, and demonstrate the value of this approach through experimental results. Overall, this research is focused on the technological aspects of electronic commerce and specifically on technology that would be used to manage trust.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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