A Bayesian Multiagent Trust Model for Social 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
In this paper, we introduce a framework for modeling the trustworthiness of peers in the setting of online social networks. In these contexts, it may be important to be filtering the wealth of messages that have been sent, which form the ongoing communication within a large community of users. This is achieved by constructing an intelligent agent that reasons about the message and each peer rater of the message, learning over time to properly gage whether a message is good or bad to show a user, based on message ratings, rater similarity, and rater credibility. Our approach employs a partially observable Markov decision process for trust modeling, moving beyond the more traditional adoption of probabilistic reasoning using beta reputation functions. In addition to outlining the technique in full, we present empirical results to demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods, both in simulations featuring head to head comparisons with competitors, and in the context of some existing online social networks where ground truth data are available.
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 | 0.001 | 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