Dynamic Credibility Threshold Assignment in Trust and Reputation Mechanisms Using PID Controller

  • Mohsen MohkamiEmail author
  • Zeinab Noorian
  • Julita Vassileva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9334)


An e-marketplace is an example of a multi-agent system where buyers try to find the best seller with best Quality of Service (QoS). The uncertainty of open marketplaces have resulted in the design of reputation systems that help buyers find honest feedback from their peers (advisers). Despite the advances in this field, there is no systematic approach for setting the honesty threshold as an acceptable level of honesty of advisers in the Trust and Reputation Management (TRM) systems. Having an appropriate honesty threshold is important in these systems, since having a high threshold would filter away possibly helpful advisers, or the opposite - having a low value for it may permit malicious advisers to badmouth good services. In this paper we propose a self-adaptive honesty threshold management mechanism that adopts PID feedback controller from the field of control systems. Experimental results on a real-world dataset show that having a dynamic honesty threshold increases the successful transaction rate of buyers in a marketplace, and improves the accuracy of the TRM system used in that marketplace.


Credibility mechanism Honesty threshold Multi-agent systems Trust modeling E-commerce 


  1. 1.
    About yelp. Accessed on 12 December 2014
  2. 2.
    Barnes, S.J., Vidgen, R.: Measuring web site quality improvements: a case study of the forum on strategic management knowledge exchange. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 103(5), 297–309 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delone, W.H.: The delone and mclean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 19(4), 9–30 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fleming, M.: Measuring treasury market liquidity. FRB of New York Staff report, 133 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gorner, J., Zhang, J., Cohen, R.: Improving trust modeling through the limit of advisor network size and use of referrals. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 12(2), 112–123 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gorner, J.M.: Advisor networks and referrals for improved trust modelling in multi-agent systems. Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haghpanah, Y., Desjardins, M.: PRep: a probabilistic reputation model for biased societies. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2012, vol. 1, pp. 315–322 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herlocker, J., Konstan, J.A., Riedl, J.: An empirical analysis of design choices in neighborhood-based collaborative filtering algorithms. Inf. Retr. 5(4), 287–310 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Irissappane, A.A., Jiang, S., Zhang, J.: A framework to choose trust models for different e-marketplace environments. In: IJCAI (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jøsang, A., Golbeck, J.: Challenges for robust trust and reputation systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Security and Trust Management (SMT 2009), Saint Malo, France (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Josang, A., Ismail, R.: The beta reputation system. In: Proceedings of the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jurca, R., Faltings, B.: An incentive compatible reputation mechanism. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, pp. 1026–1027. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, X.: Towards context-aware social recommendation via trust networks. In: Lin, X., Manolopoulos, Y., Srivastava, D., Huang, G. (eds.) WISE 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8180, pp. 121–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, X., Aberer, K.: SoCo: a social network aided context-aware recommender system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 781–802. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luca, M.: Reviews, reputation, and revenue: the case of yelp. com. Technical report, Harvard Business School (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luca, M., Zervas, G.: Fake it till you make it: reputation, competition, and yelp review fraud. Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper, 14–006 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Madhavan, A.: Market microstructure: a survey. J. Finan. Markets 3(3), 205–258 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mukherjee, A., Venkataraman, V., Liu, B., Glance, N.: Fake review detection: classification and analysis of real and pseudo reviews. Technical report UIC-CS-2013-03, University of Illinois at Chicago (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noorian, Z., Marsh, S., Fleming, M.: Multi-layer cognitive filtering by behavioral modeling. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2011, vol 2, pp. 871–878 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noorian, Z., Ulieru, M.: The state of the art in trust and reputation systems: a framework for comparison. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 5, 97–117 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ozbay, H.: Introduction to Feedback Control Theory. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Malhotra, A.: ES-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. J. Serv. Res. 7(3), 213–233 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qian, X., Feng, H., Zhao, G., Mei, T.: Personalized recommendation combining user interest and social circle. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 26, 1763–1777 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Regan, K., Poupart, P., Cohen, R.: Bayesian reputation modeling in e-marketplaces sensitive to subjectivity, deception and change. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 21, p. 1206. AAAI Press (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Socio-cognitive model of trust. In: Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (V) (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artif. Intell. Rev. 24(1), 33–60 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saxton, G.D., Anker, A.E.: The aggregate effects of decentralized knowledge production: financial bloggers and information asymmetries in the stock market. J. Commun. 63(6), 1054–1069 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith, M.J., et al.: Learning to trust in the competence and commitment of agents. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 18(1), 36–82 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Teacy, W.L., Patel, J., Jennings, N.R., Luck, M.: TRAVOS: trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 12(2), 183–198 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Visioli, A.: Practical PID Control. AIC. Springer, London (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, Y., Singh, M.P.: Formal trust model for multiagent systems. In: IJCAI, pp. 1551–1556 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohsen Mohkami
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zeinab Noorian
    • 1
  • Julita Vassileva
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations