Quantifying and Qualifying Trust: Spectral Decomposition of Trust Networks

  • Dusko Pavlovic
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6561)


In a previous FAST paper, I presented a quantitative model of the process of trust building, and showed that trust is accumulated like wealth: the rich get richer. This explained the pervasive phenomenon of adverse selection of trust certificates, as well as the fragility of trust networks in general. But a simple explanation does not always suggest a simple solution. It turns out that it is impossible to alter the fragile distribution of trust without sacrificing some of its fundamental functions. A solution for the vulnerability of trust must thus be sought elsewhere, without tampering with its distribution. This observation was the starting point of the present paper. It explores different methods for securing trust: not by redistributing, but by qualifying it. The methods used to break privacy can be used to secure trust.


Spectral Decomposition Adverse Selection Trust Rating Latent Semantic Analysis Trust Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Benantar, M.: Access Control Systems: Security, Identity Management and Trust Models. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K.: Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior 10(1), 122–142 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beth, T., Borcherding, M., Klein, B.: Valuation of trust in open networks. In: Gollmann, D. (ed.) ESORICS 1994. LNCS, vol. 875, pp. 3–18. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brin, S., Page, L.: The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 30(1-7), 107–117 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carbone, M., Nielsen, M., Sassone, V.: A formal model for trust in dynamic networks. In: Cerone, A., Lindsay, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carroll, L.: What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. Mind 4, 278–280 (1895)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deerwester, S.C., Dumais, S.T., Landauer, T.K., Furnas, G.W., Harshman, R.A.: Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society of Information Science 41(6), 391–407 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doyle, J.C., Alderson, D.L., Li, L., Low, S., Roughan, M., Shalunov, S., Tanaka, R., Willinger, W.: The robust yet fragile nature of the Internet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(41), 14497–14502 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edelman, B.: Adverse selection in online ”trust” certifications. In: ICEC 2009: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 205–212. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Etalle, S., Winsborough, W.H.: Maintaining control while delegating trust: Integrity constraints in trust management. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 13(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golub, G.H., Van Loan, C.F.: Matrix Computations, 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins Studies in Mathematical Sciences. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (October 1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    GSL Team. GNU Scientific Library Reference Manual (2010),
  13. 13.
    Guha, R., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., Tomkins, A.: Propagation of trust and distrust. In: WWW 2004: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 403–412. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guttman, J.D., Thayer, F.J., Carlson, J.A., Herzog, J.C., Ramsdell, J.D., Sniffen, B.T.: Trust management in strand spaces: A rely-guarantee method. In: Schmidt, D.A. (ed.) ESOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 2986, pp. 325–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gyöngyi, Z., Garcia-Molina, H., Pedersen, J.O.: Combating web spam with trustrank. In: Nascimento, M.A., Özsu, M.T., Kossmann, D., Miller, R.J., Blakeley, J.A., Schiefer, K.B. (eds.) VLDB, pp. 576–587. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ibsen, H.: Pillars of Society. Kissinger Publishing (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jardine, N., Sibson, R.: Mathematical Taxonomy. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester (1971)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jøsang, A.: A subjective metric of authentication. In: Quisquater, J.-J., Deswarte, Y., Meadows, C., Gollmann, D. (eds.) ESORICS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1485, pp. 329–344. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jøsang, A.: An algebra for assessing trust in certification chains. In: NDSS. The Internet Society (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jøsang, A., Gray, E., Kinateder, M.: Simplification and analysis of transitive trust networks. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems 4(2), 139–161 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43, 618–644 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kamvar, S.D., Schlosser, M.T., Garcia-Molina, H.: The Eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks. In: WWW 2003: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 640–651. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karabulut, Y., Kerschbaum, F., Massacci, F., Robinson, P., Yautsiukhin, A.: Security and trust in it business outsourcing: a manifesto. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 179, 47–58 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kleinberg, J.M.: Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM 46(5), 604–632 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lampson, B., Abadi, M., Burrows, M., Wobber, E.: Authentication in distributed systems: theory and practice. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 25(5), 165–182 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Langville, A.N., Meyer, C.D.: Google’s PageRank and Beyond: The Science of Search Engine Rankings. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levien, R., Aiken, A.: Attack-resistant trust metrics for public key certification. In: SSYM 1998: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium, p. 18. USENIX Association, Berkeley (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li, N., Mitchell, J.C., Winsborough, W.H.: Design of a role-based trust-management framework. In: SP 2002: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Washington, DC, USA, p. 114. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li, N., Mitchell, J.C., Winsborough, W.H.: Beyond proof-of-compliance: security analysis in trust management. J. ACM 52(3), 474–514 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marti, S., Garcia-Molina, H.: Taxonomy of trust: categorizing P2P reputation systems. Comput. Netw. 50(4), 472–484 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maurer, U.: Modelling a public-key infrastructure. In: Bertino, E., Kurth, H., Martella, G., Montolivo, E. (eds.) ESORICS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1146, pp. 325–350. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mitzenmacher, M.: A brief history of generative models for power law and lognormal distribution. Internet Math. 1, 226–251 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Newman, M.: Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics 46, 323 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pareto, V.: Cours d’Economie Politique. Druz (1896)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pavlovic, D.: Dynamics, Robustness and Fragility of Trust. In: Degano, P., Guttman, J., Martinelli, F. (eds.) FAST 2008. LNCS, vol. 5491, pp. 97–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pavlovic, D.: Network as a Computer: Ranking Paths to Find Flows. In: Hirsch, E.A., Razborov, A.A., Semenov, A., Slissenko, A. (eds.) Computer Science – Theory and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5010, pp. 384–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reiter, M.K., Stubblebine, S.G.: Authentication metric analysis and design. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 2(2), 138–158 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Resnick, P., Varian, H.R.: Recommender systems. Commun. ACM 40, 56–58 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Trefethen, L.N., Bau III., D. (eds.): Numerical Linear Algebra. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, USA (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yahalom, R., Klein, B., Beth, T.: Trust-based navigation in distribution systems. Computing Systems 7(1), 45–73 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dusko Pavlovic
    • 1
  1. 1.Universities of Oxford and TwenteUK

Personalised recommendations