Trust Model Architecture: Defining Prejudice by Learning

  • M. Wojcik
  • J. H. P. Eloff
  • H. S. Venter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4083)


Due to technological change, businesses have become information driven, wanting to use information in order to improve business function. This perspective change has flooded the economy with information and left businesses with the problem of finding information that is accurate, relevant and trustworthy. Further risk exists when a business is required to share information in order to gain new information. Trust models allow technology to assist by allowing agents to make trust decisions about other agents without direct human intervention. Information is only shared and trusted if the other agent is trusted. To prevent a trust model from having to analyse every interaction it comes across – thereby potentially flooding the network with communications and taking up processing power – prejudice filters filter out unwanted communications before such analysis is required. This paper, through literary study, explores how this is achieved and how various prejudice filters can be implemented in conjunction with one another.


Trust Model Trust Evaluation Logical Rule Initial Trust Edward Elgar Publishing 
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.
    Hultkrantz, O., Lumsden, K.: E-commerce and consequences for the logistics industry. In: Proceedings for Seminar on The Impact of E-Commerce on Transport, Paris (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patton, M.A., Josang, A.: Technologies for trust in electronic commerce. Electronic Commerce Research 4, 9–21 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abdul-Rahman, A., Hailes, S.: A distributed trust model: new security paradigms workshop. In: Proceedings of the 1997 workshop on new security paradigms, Langdale, Cumbria, United Kingdom, pp. 48–60 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramchurn, S.R., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R., Godo, L.: A Computational Trust Model for Multi-Agent Interactions based on Confidence and Reputation. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop of Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 69–75 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nooteboom, B.: Trust: forms, foundations, functions, failures, and figures. Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd., Cheltenham UK. (2002) ISBN: 1 84064 545 8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papadopou, P., Andreou, A., Kanellis, P., Martakos, D.: Trust and relationship building in electronic commerce. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 11(4), 322–332 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carbone, M., Nielsen, M., Sassone, V.: A formal model for trust in dynamic networks. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, September 25-26, pp. 54–61 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marx, M., Treur, J.: Trust dynamics formalised in temporal logic. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Science, ICCS, pp. 359–362 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Formal Analysis of Models for the Dynamics of Trust based on Experiences. In: Garijo, F.J., Boman, M. (eds.) MAAMAW 1999. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 1647. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Damiani, E., De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Samarati, P.: Managing Multiple and Dependable Identities. IEEE Internet Computing (November-December 2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xiong, L., Lui, L.: A Reputation-Based Trust Model for Peer-to-Peer eCommerce Communities. In: IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce, June 24-27, pp. 275–284 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R., Godo, L.: Devising a trust model for multi-agent interactions using confidence and reputation. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18, 833–852 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wojcik, M., Venter, H.S., Eloff, J.H.P., Olivier, M.S.: Incorporating prejudice into trust models to reduce network overload. In: Proceedings of South African Telecommunications and Networking Application Conference (SATNAC 2005), SATNAC, Telkom. CD ROM Publication (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bagley, C., Verma, G., Mallick, K., Young, L.: Personality, self-esteem and prejudice. Saxon House. Teakfield Ltd., Westmead. Farnborough, Hants, England (1979) ISBN: 0 566 00265 5Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bowling, M., Manuela, V.: Multiagent learning using variable rate. Artificial Intelligence 136, 215–250 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dasgupta, D.: Artificial neural networks and artificial immune systems: similarities and differences. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC 1997), Orlando, October 12-15 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siyal, M.Y., Barkat, B.: A novel Trust Service Provider for the Internet based commerce applications. Internet research: electronic networking applications and policy 12(1), 55–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Wojcik
    • 1
  • J. H. P. Eloff
    • 1
  • H. S. Venter
    • 1
  1. 1.Information and Computer Security Architectures Research Group (ICSA), Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Pretoria 

Personalised recommendations