A hybrid trust model using reinforcement learning and fuzzy logic
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
Abstract Multiagent systems (MASs) are increasingly popular for modeling distributed environments that are highly complex and dynamic, such as e‐commerce, smart buildings, and smart grids. Typically, agents assumed to be goal driven with limited abilities, which restrains them to working with other agents for accomplishing complex tasks. Trust is considered significant in MASs to make interactions effectively, especially when agents cannot assure that potential partners share the same core beliefs about the system or make accurate statements regarding their competencies and abilities. Due to the imprecise and dynamic nature of trust in MASs, we propose a hybrid trust model that uses fuzzy logic and Q‐learning for trust modeling. as an improvement over Q‐learning‐based trust evaluation. Q‐learning is used to estimate trust on the long term, fuzzy inferences are used to aggregate different trust factors, and suspension is used as a short‐term response to dynamic changes. The performance of the proposed model is evaluated using simulation. Simulation results indicate that the proposed model can help agents select trustworthy partners to interact with. It has a better performance compared to some of the popular trust models in the presence of misbehaving interaction partners.
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 | 0.002 | 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