Comparison of six aggregation strategies to compute users' trustworthiness

Authors:
Pierpaolo Dondio;Stephen Barrett
Affiliations:
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland;Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Venue:
CIKM '10 Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
Year:
2010

Citing 2
Cited 0

Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification

Artificial Intelligence
Trust Is Much More than Subjective Probability: Mental Components and Sources of Trust

HICSS '00 Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences-Volume 6 - Volume 6

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The decision to grant trust in virtual societies is often an evidence based process. The evidence for such decision derives from a diverse set, where mutual relationships and contradictions might occur. This paper compares and evaluates six aggregation strategies to compute users' trustworthiness. Our evaluation performed over a large online-community, shows how a rule-based strategy based on an argumentation semantic outperforms strategies where mutual relationships among evidence are ignored.