Trust and reputation model in peer-to-peer networks
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
It is important to enable peers to represent and update their trust in other peers in open networks for sharing files, and especially services. We propose a Bayesian network-based trust model and a method for building reputation based on recommendations in peer-to-peer networks. Since trust is multifaceted, peers need to develop differentiated trust in different aspects of other peers' capability. The peer's needs are different in different situations. Depending on the situation, a peer may need to consider its trust in a specific aspect of another peer's capability or in multiple aspects. Bayesian networks provide a flexible method to present differentiated trust and combine different aspects of trust. The evaluation of the model using a simulation shows that the system where peers communicate their experiences (recommendations) outperforms the system where peers do not share recommendations with each other and that a differentiated trust adds to the performance in terms of percentage of successful interactions.
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) | 0.000 | 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