Accurate Trust Evaluation for Effective Operation of Social IoT Systems via Hypergraph-Enabled Self-Supervised Contrastive Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social Internet-of-Things (IoT) enhances collaboration between devices by endowing IoT systems with social attributes. However, calculating trust between devices based on complex and dynamic social attributes—similar to trust formation mechanisms in human society—poses a significant challenge. To address this issue, this paper presents a new hypergraph-enabled selfsupervised contrastive learning (HSCL) method to accurately determine trust values between devices. To implement the proposed HSCL, hypergraphs are first used to discover and represent high-order relationships based on social attributes. Hypergraph augmentation is then applied to enhance the semantics of the generated social hypergraph, followed by the use of a parametersharing hypergraph neural network to nonlinearly fuse the high-order social relationships. Additionally, a self-supervised contrastive learning method is utilized to obtain meaningful device embeddings by conducting comparisons among devices, hyperedges, and device-to-hyperedge relationships. Finally, trust values between devices are calculated based on device embeddings that encapsulate high-order social relationships. Extensive experiments reveal that the proposed HSCL method outperforms baseline algorithms in effectively distinguishing between trusted and untrusted nodes and identifying the most trusted node.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".