Credibility: How Agents Can Handle Unfair Third-Party Testimonies in Computational Trust Models
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
Usually, agents within multiagent systems represent different stakeholders that have their own distinct and sometimes conflicting interests and objectives. They would behave in such a way so as to achieve their own objectives, even at the cost of others. Therefore, there are risks in interacting with other agents. A number of computational trust models have been proposed to manage such risk. However, the performance of most computational trust models that rely on third-party recommendations as part of the mechanism to derive trust is easily deteriorated by the presence of unfair testimonies. There have been several attempts to combat the influence of unfair testimonies. Nevertheless, they are either not readily applicable since they require additional information which is not available in realistic settings, or ad hoc as they are tightly coupled with specific trust models. Against this background, a general credibility model is proposed in this paper. Empirical studies have shown that the proposed credibility model is more effective than related work in mitigating the adverse influence of unfair testimonies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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