Science China Information Sciences

, Volume 56, Issue 10, pp 1–14 | Cite as

SelfTrust: leveraging self-assessment for trust inference in Internetware

  • Yuan Yao
  • Feng XuEmail author
  • YongLi Ren
  • HangHang Tong
  • Jian Lü
Research Paper


Internetware is envisioned as a new software paradigm for software development in platforms such as the Internet. The reliability of the developed software becomes a key challenge due to the open, dynamic and uncertain nature of such environment. To make the development more reliable, it is necessary to evaluate the trustworthiness of the resource providers or potential working partners. To this end, we propose a novel trust inference approach to evaluating the trustworthiness of potential partners to guide the software development in Internetware. The main insight of our approach is to employ the self-assessment information in order to improve the trust inference accuracy. Especially, we first extend the balance theory and the status theory from social science to incorporate self-assessment, and then propose a machine learning framework to extract several features from the extended theories and infer trustworthiness scores based on these features. Experimental results on a real software developer network show that the self-assessment information truly helps to improve the accuracy of trust inference, and the proposed SelfTrust model is more accurate than other state-of-the-art methods.


trust inference self-assessment balance theory status theory Internetware 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lü J, Ma X, Tao X, et al. Research and progress on Internetware (in Chinese). Sci China Ser E-Inf Sci, 2006, 36: 1037–1080Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li L, Wang Y, Lim E P. Trust-oriented composite service selection and discovery. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, Stockholm, 2009. 50–67Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hang C W, Singh M P. Trustworthy service selection and composition. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst, 2011, 6: 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang Y, Vassileva J. A review on trust and reputation for web service selection. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, Toronto, 2007. 25–25Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jøsang A, Ismail R, Boyd C. A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis Support Syst, 2007, 43: 618–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jøsang A, Ismail R. The Beta reputation system. In: Proceedings of the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Bled, 2002. 41–55Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kamvar S D, Schlosser M T, Garcia-Molina H. The Eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in p2p networks. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, Budapest, 2003. 640–651Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li F, Wu J. Uncertainty modeling and reduction in MANETs. IEEE Trans Mob Comput, 2010, 9: 1035–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Golbeck J. Computing and applying trust in web-based social networks. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. University of Maryland, 2005Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gambetta D. Can we trust trust. In: Gambetta D, ed. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. University of Oxford Press, 2000. 213–237Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cartwright D, Harary F. Structural balance: a generalization of heider’s theory. Psychol Rev, 1956, 63: 277–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis J A. Clustering and structural balance in graphs. Hum Relat, 1967, 20: 181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leskovec J, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J. Signed networks in social media. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, 2010. 1361–1370Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hsieh C J, Chiang K Y, Dhillon I S. Low rank modeling of signed networks. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Beijing, 2012. 507–515Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ayday E, Fekri F. Iterative trust and reputation management using belief propagation. IEEE Trans Dependable Secur Comput, 2012, 9: 375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guha R, Kumar R, Raghavan P, et al. Propagation of trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, New York, 2004. 403–412Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Massa P, Avesani P. Controversial users demand local trust metrics: an experimental study on community. In: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburgh, 2005. 121–126Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ziegler C N, Lausen G. Propagation models for trust and distrust in social networks. Inf Syst Front, 2005, 7: 337–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang Y, Singh M P. Trust representation and aggregation in a distributed agent system. In: Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, 2006. 1425–1430Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu G, Wang Y, Orgun M. Trust inference in complex trust-oriented social networks. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Vancouver, 2009. 996–1001Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hang C W, Wang Y, Singh M P. Operators for propagating trust and their evaluation in social networks. In: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Budapest, 2009. 1025–1032Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang G, Wu J. Multi-dimensional evidence-based trust management with multi-trusted paths. Future Gener Comput Syst, 2011, 27: 529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yao Y, Tong H, Xu F, et al. Subgraph extraction for trust inference in social networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, Istanbul, 2012. 163–170Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leskovec J, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J. Predicting positive and negative links in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, 2010. 641–650Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yao Y, Xu F, Yang Y, et al. PatTrust: a pattern-based evaluation approach for trust and distrust in Internetware. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, Nanjing, 2011Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Watts D J, Strogatz S H. Collective dynamics of’ small-world’ networks. Nature, 1998, 393: 440–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leskovec J, Kleinberg J, Faloutsos C. Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Chicago, 2005. 177–187Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yao Y, Zhou J, Han L, et al. Comparing linkage graph and activity graph of online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Informatics, Singapore, 2011. 84–97Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lichtenwalter R N, Lussier J T, Chawla N V. New perspectives and methods in link prediction. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington DC, 2010. 243–252Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xiong L, Liu L. Peertrust: supporting reputation-based trust for peer-to-peer electronic communities. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 2004, 16: 843–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buchegger S, Le Boudec J Y. A Robust Reputation System for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks. Technical Report. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Theoretical Computer Science Group, 2004Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zadeh L A. Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning. Synthese, 1975, 30: 407–428CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sabater J, Sierra C. Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Bologna, 2002. 475–482Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Patel J, Teacy W T L, Jennings N R, et al. A probabilistic trust model for handling inaccurate reputation sources. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Trust Management, Paris, 2005. 193–209Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Teacy W T L, Patel J, Jennings N R, et al. Travos: trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst, 2006, 12: 183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhou R, Hwang K. Powertrust: a robust and scalable reputation system for trusted peer-to-peer computing. IEEE Trans Parall Distrib Syst, 2007, 18: 460–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang G, Wu J. Flowtrust: trust inference with network flows. Front Comput Sci China, 2011, 5: 181–194MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mui L, Mohtashemi M, Halberstadt A. A computational model of trust and reputation. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, 2002. 2431–2439Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu G, Wang Y, Orgun M A. Optimal social trust path selection in complex social networks. In: Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Atlanta, 2010. 1391–1398Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chiang K Y, Natarajan N, Tewari A, et al. Exploiting longer cycles for link prediction in signed networks. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and knowledge Management, Glasgow, 2011. 1157–1162Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nguyen V A, Lim E P, Jiang J, et al. To trust or not to trust? predicting online trusts using trust antecedent framework. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Data Mining, Miami, 2009. 896–901Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuan Yao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Feng Xu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • YongLi Ren
    • 3
  • HangHang Tong
    • 4
  • Jian Lü
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory for Novel Software TechnologyNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyNanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.School of Information TechnologyDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  4. 4.City CollegeCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations