Trust Models and Con-Man Agents: From Mathematical to Empirical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has demonstrated that several trust and reputation models can be exploited by malicious agents with cyclical behaviour. In each cycle, the malicious agent with cyclical behaviour first regains a high trust value after a number of cooperations and then abuses its gained trust by engaging in a bad transaction. Using a game theoretic formulation, Salehi-Abari and White have proposed the AER model that is resistant to exploitation by cyclical behaviour. Their simulation results imply that FIRE, Regret, and a model due to Yu and Singh, can always be exploited with an appropriate value for the period of cyclical behaviour. Furthermore, their results demonstrate that this is not so for the proposed adaptive scheme. This paper provides a mathematical analysis of the properties of five trust models when faced with cyclical behaviour of malicious agents. Three main results are proven. First, malicious agents can always select a cycle period that allows them to exploit the four models of FIRE, Regret, Probabilistic models, and Yu and Singh indefinitely. Second, malicious agents cannot select a single, finite cycle period that allows them to exploit the AER model forever. Finally, the number of cooperations required to achieve a given trust value increases monotonically with each cycle. In addition to the mathematical analysis, this paper empirically shows how malicious agents can use the theorems proven in this paper to mount efficient attacks on trust models.
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 | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".