The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An evidential model of distributed reputation management
Abstract
For agents to function effectively in large and open networks, they must ensure that their correspondents, i.e., the agents they interact with, are trustworthy. Since no central authorities may exist, the only way agents can find trustworthy correspondents is by collaborating with others to identify those whose past behavior has been untrustworthy. In other words, finding trustworthy correspondents reduces to the problem of distributed reputation management. Our approach adapts the mathematical theory of evidence to represent and propagate the ratings that agents give to their correspondents. When evaluating the trustworthiness of a correspondent, an agent combines its local evidence (based on direct prior interactions with the correspondent) with the testimonies of other agents regarding the same correspondent. We experimentally studied this approach to establish that some important properties of trust are captured by it.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The social control of impersonal trust
Shapiro, S. P. (1987) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/228791 · Cited by 1,725
Cited by
Eliminating the Effect of Rating Bias on Reputation Systems
Wu, L., Ren, Z., Ren, X.-L., Zhang, J., & Lü, L. (2018) · Complexity · doi:10.1155/2018/4325016 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Yu, B., & Singh, M. P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2002-07-15
- Pages
- 294-301
- OpenAlex
- W2134661798
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 30.46
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An evidential model of distributed reputation management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/544741.544809
- The paper
- Yu, B., & Singh, M. P. (2002). An evidential model of distributed reputation management. Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/544741.544809
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
