Detecting and Reacting to Changes in Reputation Flows

  • Sini Ruohomaa
  • Aleksi Hankalahti
  • Lea Kutvonen
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 358)


In inter-enterprise collaboration, autonomic services from different organizations must independently determine which other services they can rely on. Reputation-based trust management in the Pilarcos open service ecosystem combines shared experience information on the actors’ past behaviour and the decision context to estimate the risks of a collaboration. The trust decision process is semi-automatic, with selected decisions forwarded to a human user. A particularly interesting feature of the decision process is incongruity, that is, unexpected changes in service performance. In the classical example, a previously well-behaved service turns malicious to cash in its good reputation as ill-gained monetary profit. If the reputation system swiftly reacts to such changes, it protects its user more efficiently and deters misbehaviour. We present a new model for detecting and reacting to incongruities in a reputation-based trust management system. The model is based on the concept of reputation epochs, dividing an actor’s reputation into periods of internally consistent behaviour. In contrast to earlier approaches, this model provides the necessary flexibility for the trust management system to adjust to constantly changing business situations.


Trust Management Reputation System Load Balance Algorithm Current Epoch Trust Decision 
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.


  1. 1.
    Cahill, V., et al.: Using trust for secure collaboration in uncertain environments. Pervasive Computing 2(3), 52–61 (2003), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems: Emerging Issues in Collaborative Commerce 43(2), 618–644 (2007), Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jung, J., Paxson, V., Berger, A.W., Balakrishnan, H.: Fast portscan detection using sequential hypothesis testing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 211–225 (2004),
  4. 4.
    Kinateder, M., Baschny, E., Rothermel, K.: Towards a generic trust model – comparison of various trust update algorithms. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 177–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2005), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kutvonen, L., Ruokolainen, T., Ruohomaa, S., Metso, J.: Service-oriented middleware for managing inter-enterprise collaborations. In: Global Implications of Modern Enterprise Information Systems: Technologies and Applications. Advances in Enterprise Information Systems (AEIS), pp. 209–241. IGI Global (December 2008),
  6. 6.
    Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L.: Making multi-dimensional trust decisions on inter-enterprise collaborations. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Availability, Security and Reliability (ARES 2008), pp. 873–880. IEEE Computer Society, Barcelona, Spain (March 2008), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L.: Trust and distrust in adaptive inter-enterprise collaboration management. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 5(2), 118–136 (2010), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L., Koutrouli, E.: Reputation management survey. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES 2007), pp. 103–111. IEEE Computer Society, Vienna, Austria (2007), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In: AAMAS 2002: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, Bologna, Italy, pp. 475–482 (2002),
  10. 10.
    Schlosser, A., Voss, M., Brückner, L.: On the simulation of global reputation systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(1) (January 2006),
  11. 11.
    Srivatsa, M., Xiong, L., Liu, L.: TrustGuard: countering vulnerabilities in reputation management for decentralized overlay networks. In: WWW ’05: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the World Wide Web, pp. 422–431. ACM Press, New York (2005), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teacy, W.T.L., Patel, J., Jennings, N.R., Luck, M.: TRAVOS: Trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate reputation sources. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems 12(2), 183–198 (2006), Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Viljanen, L.: A survey on application level intrusion detection. Tech. rep., University of Helsinki, Department of Computer Science (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wald, A.: Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 16(2), 117–186 (1945), zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sini Ruohomaa
    • 1
  • Aleksi Hankalahti
    • 1
  • Lea Kutvonen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations