Reputation  Management Survey
1 / 27

Reputation Management Survey - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Reputation Management Survey. - Vinay. Introduction. Electronic markets, Distributed peer-to-peer applications - other forms of online collaboration All based on mutual trust, which enables transacting peers to overcome the uncertainty and risk inherent in the environment.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Reputation Management Survey' - murray

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Reputation management survey


  • Electronic markets,

  • Distributed peer-to-peer applications

  • - other forms of online collaboration

  • All based on mutual trust, which enables transacting peers

  • to overcome the uncertainty and risk inherent in the

  • environment.

Where does this Trust Come From ????

Reputation management survey

Reputation Systems

  • - Reputation systems provide essential input for computational trust

  • as predictions on future behavior based on a peer’s past

  • actions.

  • Information about these actions can also be received from other

  • members of a reputation network who have transacted with the peer

But the credibility of this kind of Information must be critically

assessed as it is third party information.

- The Main goal of these systems is predicting a peer’s future actions,

given knowledge about its past behavior

- From Where do they get this Knowledge from ????

Reputation management survey

Reputation Systems

  • Ideally these kind of information comes from first-hand

  • transactions with that particular peer

  • But Interacting with every peer becomes costly

  • To overcome or lessen the cost Peers share their experiences

  • through the reputation systems

  • This makes it possible for the entire community to detect and

  • isolate misbehaving peers effectively.

  • - We refer to this shared information as recommendations.

Reputation management survey

Credibility Assessment

  • Reputation systems have been widely used for various

  • applications

  • Credibility Assessment of the provided reputation

  • information is becoming increasingly important where more

  • resources and business value depend on making correct trust

  • decisions

  • This Assessment is necessary because

  • A peer can provide inaccurate information.

  • Two peers can just come to an agreement and claim positive

  • experiences of each other to increase their reputation

  • A peer can defame another peer by providing bad experience to

  • to increase its own fame

Reputation management survey

Here we are going to analyze the Maturity of current reputation systems . We are going to compare 11 reputation systems in terms of

  • The creation and content of a recommendation

  • The selection and use of recommenders

  • The interpretation and reasoning applied

  • to the gathered information

Reputation management survey

The terms which are mentioned before are the credibility aspects

  • The Creation and Content of Recommendation :

  • It determines whether the information in a recommendation provides sufficient basis for credibility analysis

  • It involves combining local experience information into a standard

  • Form to present to another peer. This can include both positive and negative

  • Experiences . Recommendation can include time of transaction to separate

  • new information from old.

  • If the recommendation passes through mediator then additional

  • information is needed to ensure transparency.

Reputation management survey

2. Selection and Use of Recommenders aspects

A node which is gathering recommendation information selects its recommenders from a set of possible nodes or it can simply allow and expect any knowledgeable node provide.

The node which is gathering can be trustor ie a centralized entity collecting all recommendations.

The main criterion to consider for selection is the credibility of the recommender

3. Interpretation and reasoning

The acquired recommendations are combined with local experience ( trustor’s local experience ) and aggregated into suitable format.

Finally the system may analyze the overall credibility of the Information.

Reputation management survey

These Reputation systems represent a wide range of applications with

different requirements

Reputation management survey

eBay Systems They are

This reputation system stores users ratings linked to their profiles and elated transactions but leaves credibility analysis to human users


This also leaves the credibility analysis to humans but apart from that it also performs a automated credibility analysis as well.

FuzztTrust and REGRET

Both designed for same purpose multi agent market place. But have different approaches.

Reputation management survey

FuzzyTrust Systems They are

In This reputation system, Local trust scores are generated and then added to global reputation values


Viewpoints are applied as needed to enter a local reputation view , based on social relations between peers.


For Cooperative applications , Trustors are given signed receipts of successful transactions ie cookies as sign of trust

Reputation management survey

MDNT Systems They are

In This reputation estimate involves predicting trustee’s behavior

based on experience from a specific time period


This uses probabilistic approach and considers the probability of recommenders to provide incorrect information


It considers transaction and community contexts when estimating reputation

Reputation management survey

Managing Trust Systems They are

This reputation system considers only negative experiences and allows recommenders to remain anonymous


This is file sharing system , It relies specifically on a global , shared view of reputation


The Reputation information is used to choose the most trustworthy partner. It bases reputation expression on probability distributions.

Reputation management survey

Recommendation Creation and Content in these reputation Systems

When Creating a Recommendation , Recommender analyzes the local experience and also takes into consider the negative and Positive experience

Managing trust

In Managing Trust , it considers only negative experience

And is the only system which allows sources of complaints anonymous. It also uses digital signature

NICE and Unitec

They use aggregated opinions but they do not specify the aggregation method and simply assume a policy is in place for determining it . This policy can be shared among all peers or locally defined.

Reputation management survey

REGRET Systems

An opinion is calculated as the weighted average of single experience ratings with more weight to given to newer experiences.

Travos and EigenTrust

They keep counters of positive and negative experiences and use them to provide aggregated opinion.

Travos simply presents both counters.

Eigen Trust calulates their difference and normalizes the value between the range [0,1]

Reputation management survey

MDNT Systems

In this system , opinion presented is calculated by CCCI metric

CCCI Stands for Correlation Commit Clear Influence

For Commit , we define 7 levels of criteria ie -1 to 5

None or ignore

Nothing is delivered and so on to Fully Delivered all the Commitment

For Clear Criteria , we again define 7 levels of criteria -1 to 5

None or ignore

Not clear, barely clear, ….. Very clear

Reputation management survey

For Influence Criterion also 7 levels Systems

None or ignore

Unimportant , Barely , Partially , largely , important, very imp.

Then the Correlation is caluculated

Correlation is calculated as

Corr N

= Σ(Commit criterion c * Clear criterion c * Inf criterion c )


This gives us how much the Trusted agent has delivered his commitment.

Reputation management survey

eBay Systems

The reputation System resides on a centralized server. It shows all ratings as part of user profiles and user can add their comment on it.


This is same as eBay but suggests to have time stamps to be included for the recommendation part as a part of the key for storing it. It also includes recommenders digital signature to guarantee its integrity.

Reputation management survey

Selection and Use of Recommenders in These Reputation Systems

Out of the 11 reputation systems Five of them uses recommendations from all peers for selection . They are






Two of them Limit the number of recommenders


which groups peers according to their social context such as their relationship with trustee and then chooses the most representative member of each group

Reputation management survey

FuzzyTrust Systems

Recommenders are chosen through global weighting based on their number of performed transactions and local trust score. The weight is then compared to a threshold based on peer’s role , A Superpeer with high threshold than regular peer for load balancing.


In this recommenders are selected based on their credibility. Which lowers the likelihood of new recommenders to get their voice


It may have bias in selection as it is left to the user to decide.

Reputation management survey

MLE Systems

Reputation estimation is based only on existing recommendations but selection method for this s not defined.

The most common way is to leave it to the trustor for slection.


Here the trustee tries to locate chains of first hand recommendations from trustor to itself

Reputation management survey

Reasoning and Interpretation in Reputation Systems Systems

Once the Reputation Information is collected , it must be aggregated into a suitable format then we examine how recommendations are aggregated and interpret them.

The Final Interpretation of the result is most commonly threshold based.

If the trustee’s reputation value is high enough , the trustor will decide to transact with it.

This Approach is taken by NICE, MDNT, Managing Trust and MLE

Reputation management survey

FuzzyTrust, REGRET and PeerTrust do not specify how the final measure is interpreted but both threshold and rank based approaches are possible.

Travos Explicitly uses rank based approach where a trustor orders a group of Potential partners based on their reputation for selection purpose.

Generally Rank Based selection is only usable when several potential partners can provide a similar service and therefore interchangeable.

eBay and Unitec do not perform interpretation at all as they present a report to a human user

Reputation management survey

Evaluating the result final measure is interpreted but both threshold and rank based approaches are possible.

Evaluation is done rarely . Ad not all the systems do evaluation

REGRET calculates a Reliability value for each type of reputation based on variety of factors such as available information, social relationships .

eBay and Unitec provide reports for which given metadata evaluation is possible

Reputation management survey

Conclusion final measure is interpreted but both threshold and rank based approaches are possible.

There are two points of focus for designing a reputation system to perform well in its field.

Social Requirements & Scalability

In this survey we have focused on analyzing the Social Requirements but there was not sufficient information available on Scalability of the analyzed systems.

Scalability requires addressing three load challenges. Load placed on trustor, high reputation nodes and network through recommendation transfers.

Allowing different levels of analysis based on situation is a solution for the above mentioned loads in Scalability

Reputation management survey

  • To make the Reputation Systems more mature final measure is interpreted but both threshold and rank based approaches are possible.

  • The Reputation Information should be standardized to achieve interoperability

  • Experience based reputation information should be based on commonly acceptable framework.

Reputation management survey

Thank You final measure is interpreted but both threshold and rank based approaches are possible.