A Survey on Trust Evaluation Based on Machine Learning
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
Trust evaluation is the process of quantifying trust with attributes that influence trust. It faces a number of severe issues such as lack of essential evaluation data, demand of big data process, request of simple trust relationship expression, and expectation of automation. In order to overcome these problems and intelligently and automatically evaluate trust, machine learning has been applied into trust evaluation. Researchers have proposed many methods to use machine learning for trust evaluation. However, the literature still lacks a comprehensive literature review on this topic. In this article, we perform a thorough survey on trust evaluation based on machine learning. First, we cover essential prerequisites of trust evaluation and machine learning. Then, we justify a number of requirements that a sound trust evaluation method should satisfy, and propose them as evaluation criteria to assess the performance of trust evaluation methods. Furthermore, we systematically organize existing methods according to application scenarios and provide a comprehensive literature review on trust evaluation from the perspective of machine learning’s function in trust evaluation and evaluation granularity. Finally, according to the completed review and evaluation, we explore some open research problems and suggest the directions that are worth our research effort in the future.
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 | 0.029 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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