MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rapid and Continuous Trust Evaluation for Effective Task Collaboration Through Siamese Model

2025· article· en· W4414539568 on OpenAlexaff
Botao Zhu, Xianbin Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Semantics (computer science)Resource (disambiguation)Task analysisTrustworthinessServerSimilarity (geometry)Data flow diagram

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust is emerging as an effective tool to ensure the successful completion of collaborative tasks within collaborative systems. However, rapidly and continuously evaluating the trustworthiness of collaborators during task execution is a significant challenge due to distributed devices, complex operational environments, and dynamically changing resources. To tackle this challenge, this paper proposes a Siamese-enabled rapid and continuous trust evaluation framework (SRCTE) to facilitate effective task collaboration. First, the communication and computing resource attributes of the collaborator in a trusted state, along with historical collaboration data, are collected and represented using an attributed control flow graph (ACFG) that captures trust-related semantic information and serves as a reference for comparison with data collected during task execution. At each time slot of task execution, the collaborator's communication and computing resource attributes, as well as task completion effectiveness, are collected in real time and represented with an ACFG to convey their trust-related semantic information. A Siamese model, consisting of two shared-parameter Structure2vec networks, is then employed to learn the deep semantics of each pair of ACFGs and generate their embeddings. Finally, the similarity between the embeddings of each pair of ACFGs is calculated to determine the collaborator's trust value at each time slot. A real system is built using two Dell EMC 5200 servers and a Google Pixel 8 to test the effectiveness of the proposed SRCTE framework. Experimental results demonstrate that SRCTE converges rapidly with only a small amount of data and achieves a high anomaly trust detection rate compared to the baseline algorithm.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207