TrustGuard: GNN-Based Robust and Explainable Trust Evaluation With Dynamicity Support
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 assesses trust relationships between entities and facilitates decision-making. Machine Learning (ML) shows great potential for trust evaluation owing to its learning capabilities. In recent years, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), as a new ML paradigm, have demonstrated superiority in dealing with graph data. This has motivated researchers to explore their use in trust evaluation, as trust relationships among entities can be modeled as a graph. However, current trust evaluation methods that employ GNNs fail to fully satisfy the dynamic nature of trust, overlook the adverse effects of trust-related attacks, and cannot provide convincing explanations on evaluation results. To address these problems, we propose TrustGuard, a GNN-based accurate trust evaluation model that supports trust dynamicity, is robust against typical attacks, and provides explanations through visualization. Specifically, TrustGuard is designed with a layered architecture that contains a snapshot input layer, a spatial aggregation layer, a temporal aggregation layer, and a prediction layer. Among them, the spatial aggregation layer adopts a defense mechanism to robustly aggregate local trust, and the temporal aggregation layer applies an attention mechanism for effective learning of temporal patterns. Extensive experiments on two real-world datasets show that TrustGuard outperforms state-of-the-art GNN-based trust evaluation models with respect to trust prediction across single-timeslot and multi-timeslot, even in the presence of attacks. In addition, TrustGuard can explain its evaluation results by visualizing both spatial and temporal views.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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