Subjective logic operators in trust assessment: an empirical study
- 224 Downloads
Computational trust mechanisms aim to produce trust ratings from both direct and indirect information about agents’ behaviour. Subjective Logic (SL) has been widely adopted as the core of such systems via its fusion and discount operators. In recent research we revisited the semantics of these operators to explore an alternative, geometric interpretation. In this paper we present principled desiderata for discounting and fusion operators in SL. Building upon this we present operators that satisfy these desirable properties, including a family of discount operators. We then show, through a rigorous empirical study, that specific, geometrically interpreted, operators significantly outperform standard SL operators in estimating ground truth. These novel operators offer real advantages for computational models of trust and reputation, in which they may be employed without modifying other aspects of an existing system.
KeywordsTrust and reputation Information fusion Uncertain reasoning
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Research was sponsored by US Army Research laboratory and the UK Ministry of Defence and was accomplished under Agreement Number W911NF-06-3-0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the US Army Research Laboratory, the U.S. Government, the UKMinistry of Defense, or the UK Government. The US and UK Governments are authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation hereon.
- Bisdikian, C., Sensoy, M., Norman, T.J., Srivastaval, M.B. (2012). Trust and obfuscation principles for quality of information in emerging pervasive environments. In Proceedings of international workshop on information quality and quality of service for pervasive computing (IQ2S) (pp. 44–49). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/PerComW.2012.6197532.
- Burnett, C., & Oren, N. (2012). Sub-delegation and trust. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 1359–1360). IFAAMAS. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2343776.
- Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (2010). Trust theory: A socio-cognitive and computational model. Wiley Series in Agent Technology.Google Scholar
- Cerutti, F., Toniolo, A., Oren, N., Norman, T. (2013a). An empirical evaluation of geometric subjective logic operators. In C.I. Chesñevar, E. Onaindia, S. Ossowski, G. Vouros (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd conference on agreement technologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 8068, pp. 90–104). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Cerutti, F., Toniolo, A., Oren, N., Norman, T.J. (2013b). Context-dependent trust decisions with subjective logic. Tech. Rep. ABDNCS 20130501, Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen. http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/f.cerutti/pages/papers/techreps/ABDN-CS-2013-05-01.pdf.
- Dempster, A.P. (1968). A Generalization of Bayesian Inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 30 (2), 205–247.Google Scholar
- Guha, R., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., Tomkins, A. (2004). Propagation of trust and distrust. In Proceedings of the 13th conference on world wide web (pp. 403–412). New York: ACM Press. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=988727.
- Haghpanah, Y., & des Jardins, M. (2012). Prep: A probabilistic reputation model for biased societies. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 315–322). IFAAMAS. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2343776.
- Ismail, R., & Jøsang, A. (2002). The beta reputation system. In Proceedings of the 15th bled electronic commerce conference (pp. 324–337). https://domino.fov.uni-mb.si/ECOMFrames.nsf/pages/bled2002.
- Jøsang, A. (2008). Cumulative and averaging unfusion of beliefs. In Proceedings of the international conference on information processing and management of uncertainty.Google Scholar
- Jøsang, A., Pope, S., Daniel, M. (2005). Conditional deduction under uncertainty. In L. Godo (Ed.), Proceedings of the symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty. 8th European conference, ECSQARU 2005, July 6–8, 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Barcelona, Spain: Springer. ISBN 3-540-27326-3.Google Scholar
- Jøsang, A., Marsh, S., Pope, S. (2006). Exploring different types of trust propagation In K. Stølen, W.H. Winsborough, F. Martinelli, F. Massacci (Eds.), Trust management (pp. 179–192). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Jøsang, A., Azderska, T., Marsh, S. (2012). Trust transitivity and conditional belief reasoning. In T. Dimitrakos, R. Moona, D. Patel, D.H. McKnight (Eds.), Proceedings of 6th IFIPTM international conference on trust management (pp. 68–83). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- McAnally, D., & Jøsang, A. (2004). Addition and subtraction of beliefs. In Proceedings of the conference on information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems.Google Scholar
- Sensoy, M., Fokoue, A., Pan, J.Z., Norman, T.J., Tang, Y., Oren, N., Sycara, K. (2013). Reasoning about uncertain information and conflict resolution through trust revision. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems.Google Scholar
- Shafer, G. (1976). A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Urbano, J., Rocha, A., Oliveira, E. (2013). A socio-cognitive perspective of trust In S. Ossowski (Ed.) Agreement technologies, law, governance and technology series (Vol. 8, pp. 419–429). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar