MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285504182 · doi:10.1109/wi-iat.2015.105

FTE: A Fuzzy Logic Based Trust Establishment Model for Intelligent Agents

2015· article· en· W2285504182 on OpenAlexaff
Abdullah Aref, Thomas Tran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationComputer scienceFuzzy logicHonestyTrustworthinessComputational trustOrder (exchange)Multi-agent systemFocus (optics)Artificial intelligenceComputer securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiagent systems are commonly used for the study and implementation of distributed systems and virtual online societies. Trust has long been recognized as a vital notion in multiagent systems, where agents can be self-centred, miscellaneous, and misleading. Most existing trust models focus on creating algorithms for trusters to model the honesty of trustees in order to make effective decisions about which trustees to interact with. If agents' interactions are based on trust, trustworthy trustees will have a greater impact on interactions' results. This work describes a fuzzy logic based trust establishment model for intelligent agents using indirect feedback (FTE) that goes beyond trust evaluation to outline actions to guide trustees (instead of trusters). The model uses the retention of trusters and a fuzzy logic engine to model trusters' behaviors. The model uses both the retention behavior of the partnering truster and the average retention rate of all trusters in the society to adjusts the utility gain the trustee provides when interacting with each truster. The proposed model does not depend on direct feedback, nor does it rely on current reputation of trustees in the environment. Simulation results indicate that trustees empowered with the proposed model can be selected more by rational trusters.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207