Chain-of-Trust: A Progressive Trust Evaluation Framework Enabled by Generative AI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In collaborative systems with complex tasks relying on distributed resources, trust evaluation of potential collaborators has emerged as an effective mechanism for task completion. However, due to the network dynamics and varying information gathering latencies, it is extremely challenging to observe and collect all trust attributes of a collaborating device concurrently for a comprehensive trust assessment. In this paper, a novel progressive trust evaluation framework, namely chain-of-trust, is proposed to make better use of misaligned device attribute data. This framework, designed for effective task completion, divides the trust evaluation process into multiple chained stages based on task decomposition. At each stage, based on the task completion process, the framework only gathers the latest device attribute data relevant to that stage—leading to reduced trust evaluation complexity and overhead. By leveraging advanced in-context learning, few-shot learning, and reasoning capabilities, generative AI is then employed to analyze and interpret the collected data to produce correct evaluation results quickly. Only devices deemed trustworthy at this stage proceed to the next round of trust evaluation. The framework ultimately determines devices that remain trustworthy across all stages. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves high accuracy in trust evaluation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".