skip to main content
article

Multi-dimensional evidence-based trust management with multi-trusted paths

Published: 01 May 2011 Publication History

Abstract

Trust management is an extensively investigated topic. A lot of trust models and systems have been proposed in the literature. However, a universally agreed trust model is rarely seen due to the fact that trust is essentially subjective and different people may have different views on it. We focus on the personalization of trust in order to catch this subjective nature of trust. We propose a multi-dimensional evidence-based trust management system with multi-trusted paths (MeTrust for short) to conduct trust computation on any arbitrarily complex trusted graph. The trust computation in MeTrust is conducted at three tiers, namely, the node tier, the path tier, and the graph tier. At the node tier, we consider multi-dimensional trust. Users can define a primary dimension and alternative dimensions on their own and users can make their own privileged strategies and setup weights for different dimensions for trust computation. At the path tier, we propose to use the Frank t-norm for users to control the decay rate for trust combination, which can be tuned in between the minimum trust combination (there is no decay in terms of the path length) and the product trust combination (the decay is too fast when the path length is relatively large). At the graph tier, we propose GraphReduce, GraphAdjust, and WeightedAverage algorithms to simplify any arbitrarily complex trusted graph. We employ trust truncation and trust equivalence to guarantee that every link in the graph will be used exactly once for trust computation. We evaluated trust truncation ratio and trust success ratio through extensive experiments, which can serve as a guide for users to select from a wide spectrum of trust parameters for trust computation.

References

[1]
Gefen, D., Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers. ACM SIGMIS Database. v33 i3. 38-53.
[2]
N. Griffiths, Task delegation using experience-based multi-dimensional trust, in: Proc. of AAMAS 2005, July 2005, pp. 489-496.
[3]
L. Mui, M. Mohtashemi, A. Halberstadt, A computational model of trust and reputation, in: Proc. of HICSS 2002, January 2002, pp. 2431-2439.
[4]
Golbeck, J. and Hendler, J., Inferring binary trust relationships in web-based social networks. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology. v6 i4. 497-529.
[5]
T.D. Huynh, A personalized framework for trust assessment, in: Proc. of SAC 2009, March 2009, pp. 1302-1307.
[6]
Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Friedman, E. and Kuwabara, K., Reputation systems. Communications of the ACM. v43 i12. 45-48.
[7]
S.D. Kamvar, M.T. Schlosser, H. GarciaMolina, The EigenTrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks, in: Proc. of ACM WWW 2003, May 2003, pp. 640-651.
[8]
Wang, Y. and Nakao, A., Poisonedwater, an improved approach for accurate reputation ranking in P2P networks. Future Generation Computer Systems.
[9]
Shaikh, R.A., Jameel, H., d'Auriol, B.J., Lee, H., Lee, S. and Song, Y.J., Group-based trust management scheme for clustered wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems. v20 i11. 1698-1712.
[10]
S. Buchegger, J.-Y. Le Boudec, Performance analysis of the CONFIDANT protocol, in: Proc. of ACM MobiHoc 2002, June 2002, pp. 226-236.
[11]
Xiong, L. and Liu, L., PeerTrust: supporting reputation-based trust for peer-to-peer electronic communities. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. v16 i7. 843-857.
[12]
Theodorakopoulos, G. and Baras, J.S., On trust models and trust evaluation metrics for ad hoc networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications. v24 i2. 318-328.
[13]
A. Jøsang, R. Hayward, S. Pope, Trust network analysis with subjective logic, in: Proc. of ACSC 2006, January 2006, pp. 85-94.
[14]
A. Jøsang, T. Bhuiyan, Optimal trust network analysis with subjective logic, in: Proc. of SECURWARE 2008, August 2008, pp. 179-184.
[15]
Y. Zuo, W.-C. Hu, T. O'Keefe, Trust computing for social networking, in: Proc.¿of ITNG 2009, April 2009, pp. 1534-1539.
[16]
Shafer, G., A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. 1976. ISBN:0-608-02508-9. Princeton University Press.
[17]
Klement, E.P., Mesiar, R. and Pap, E., Triangular Norms. 2000. ISBN:978-0-7923-6416-0.
[18]
Florea, M.C., Jousselme, A.-L., Bosse, E. and Grenier, D., Robust combination rules for evidence theory. Information Fusion. v10 i2. 183-197.
[19]
Sun, Y.L., Yu, W., Han, Z. and Liu, K.J.R., Information theoretic framework of trust modeling and evaluation for ad hoc networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications. v24 i2. 305-317.
[20]
Watts, D.J., Six Degrees: the Science of a Connected Age. 2004. ISBN:978-0393325423.
[21]
Chen, K., Hwang, K. and Chen, G., Heuristic discovery of role-based trust chains in peer-to-peer networks. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems. v20 i1. 83-96.
[22]
Watts, D.J., Dodds, P.S. and Newman, M.E.J., Identity and search in social networks. Science. v296 i5571. 1302-1305.
[23]
J. Kleinberg, The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective, in: Proc. of ACM STOC 2000, May 2000, pp. 163-170.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Future Generation Computer Systems
Future Generation Computer Systems  Volume 27, Issue 5
May, 2011
225 pages

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Netherlands

Publication History

Published: 01 May 2011

Author Tags

  1. Personalized trust
  2. Transitive trust
  3. Triangular norms
  4. Trust computation
  5. Trusted graph

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 16 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media