TrustGuard: GNN-Based Robust and Explainable Trust Evaluation With Dynamicity Support
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".