Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:11:53.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On merging two trust-networks in one with bipolar preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2015

STEFANO BISTARELLI and
FRANCESCO SANTINI
STEFANO BISTARELLI
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Matematica a Informatica, Università di Perugia, Italy Email: bista@dmi.unipg.it
FRANCESCO SANTINI
Affiliation:
Istituto di Informatica e Telematica, IIT-CNR, Pisa, Italy Email: francesco.santini@iit.cnr.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

In this paper, we study weighted trust-networks (but also unweighted), where each edge is associated with either a positive or a negative score. Hence, we consider a distrust relationship as well, allowing a user to rate poor experiences with other individuals in his web of acquaintances. We propose an algorithm to compose two of such networks in a single one, in order to merge the knowledge obtained in two different communities of individuals (possibly partially-overlapping), through two different trust management-systems. Our algorithm is based on semiring algebraic-structures, in order to have a parametric computational-framework. Such composition can be adopted whenever two trust-based communities (with the same scope) need to be amalgamated: for instance, two competitor-companies that need to unify the trust-based knowledge on their (sub-) suppliers.

Information

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 27 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue: XIV ICTCS , February 2017, pp. 215 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

References

Bistarelli, S. (2004). Semirings for Soft Constraint Solving and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2962, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U. and Rossi, F. (1997). Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. Journal of the ACM 44 (2) 201–236.Google Scholar
Bistarelli, S., Pini, M. S., Rossi, F. and Venable, K. B. (2011). Uncertainty in bipolar preference problems. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 23 (4) 545–575.Google Scholar
Bistarelli, S. and Santini, F. (2008). Propagating multitrust within trust networks. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), ACM 1990–1994.Google Scholar
Bistarelli, S. and Santini, F. (2014). Two trust networks in one: Using bipolar structures to fuse trust and distrust. In: 12th Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust, IEEE 383–390.Google Scholar
Dimoka, A. (2010). What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. Mis Quarterly 34 (2) 373–396.Google Scholar
Floyd, R. W. (1962). Algorithm 97: Shortest path. Communications of the ACM 5 (6) 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golbeck, J. (2008). Computing with Social Trust. 1st edn. Springer Publishing Company, Inc. Google Scholar
Guha, R., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P. and Tomkins, A. (2004). Propagation of trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web. WWW '04, ACM 403–412.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (2013). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Jøsang, A., Hayward, R. and Pope, S. (2006b). Trust network analysis with subjective logic. In: Proceedings of the 29th Australasian Computer Science Conference – volume 48, ACSC '06. Australian Computer Society, Inc. 85–94.Google Scholar
Jøsang, A., Marsh, S. and Pope, S. (2006a). Exploring different types of trust propagation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Trust Management, iTrust'06. Springer-Verlag 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MckNight, D. H. and Chervany, N. L. (1996). The meanings of trust. Technical Report MISRC Working Paper Series 96-04, University of Minnesota, Management Information Systems Research Center.Google Scholar
McKnight, D. H. and Chervany, N. L. (2001). While trust is cool and collected, distrust is fiery and frenzied: A model of distrust concepts. In: Amcis 2001 Proceedings 171.Google Scholar
Prade, H. (2007). A qualitative bipolar argumentative view of trust. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, SUM '07, Springer-Verlag 268–276.Google Scholar
Rogova, G. L. and Nimier, V. (2004). Reliability in information fusion: Literature survey. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Fusion, vol. 2, 1158–1165.Google Scholar
Singh, M. P. (2003). Trustworthy service composition: Challenges and research questions. In: Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Trust, Reputation, and Security: Theories and Practice, AAMAS'02, Springer-Verlag 39–52.Google Scholar
Theodorakopoulos, G. and Baras, J. S. (2004). Trust evaluation in ad-hoc networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on Wireless Security, WiSe '04, ACM 1–10.Google Scholar
Thirunarayan, K. and Verma, R. (2008). A framework for trust and distrust networks. In: Proceedings of Web, vol. 2.Google Scholar
Verbiest, N., Cornelis, C., Victor, P. and Herrera-Viedma, E. (2012). Trust and distrust aggregation enhanced with path length incorporation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 202 (Sept.) 61–74.Google Scholar
Victor, P., Cornelis, C., De Cock, M. and Pinheiro da Silva, P. (2009). Gradual trust and distrust in recommender systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160 (10) 1367–1382.Google Scholar