Recommending Services in a Trust-Based Decentralized User Modeling System

  • Sabrina Nusrat
  • Julita Vassileva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7138)


Trust and reputation mechanisms are often used in peer-to-peer networks, multi-agent systems and online communities for trust-based interactions among the users. Trust values are used to differentiate among members of the community as well as to recommend a service provider. Although different users have different needs and expectations in different aspects of the service providers, traditional trust-based models do not use trust values on neighbors for judging different aspects of service providers. In this paper, we use a multi-faceted trust model where each agent has two sets of trust values: i) trust on different aspects of the quality of service providers, ii) trust on recommendations provided for these aspects. These trust models are used in a decentralized user modeling system where agents have different preference weights in three different criteria of service providers. We have done a simulation of this system that recommends the best possible service provider for each agent according to its preference model. To the best of our knowledge this is the first system that uses multi-faceted trust values both on the qualities of service-providers and on other users’ ability to evaluate these qualities of service providers in a decentralized user modeling system.


Decentralized User Modeling System Trust Reputation Expert Finding 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abdul-Rahman, A., Hailes, S.: Supporting trust in virtual communities. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 9. IEEE Comput. Soc. (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adomavicius, G., Tuzhilin, A.: Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 17(6), 734–749 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chatfield, C., Carmichael, D., Hexel, R.: Personalisation in intelligent environments: managing the information flow. In: Proceedings of the 17th Australia Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Citizens Online: Considerations for Today and the Future (OZCHI 2005), pp. 1–10. Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group (CHISIG) of Australia, Narrabundah (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dell’Amico, M., Capra, L.: Sofia: Social filtering for robust recommendations. In: Trust Management II, pp. 135–150 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erlang Programming Language,
  6. 6.
    Fink, J., Kobsa, A.: A review and analysis of commercial user modeling servers for personalization on the world wide web. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 10(2), 209–249 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heckmann, D., Schwartz, T., Brandherm, B.: Decentralized user modeling with UserML and GUMO. In: Workshop on Decentralized, Agent Based and Social Approaches to User Modelling (DASUM), 9th Intl Conference on User Modeling, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 61–64 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horvitz, E., Breese, J., Heckerman, D., Hovel, D., Rommelse, K.: The Lumiere project: Bayesian user modeling for inferring the goals and needs of software users. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Citeseer, pp. 256–265 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kay, J., Kummerfeld, B., Lauder, P.: Personis: A Server for User Models. In: De Bra, P., Brusilovsky, P., Conejo, R. (eds.) AH 2002. LNCS, vol. 2347, pp. 203–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobsa, A.: User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 1, pp. v–viii. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1991); Printed in The Netherlands. Linguistics (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kobsa, A.: Privacy-Enhanced Web Personalization. In: Brusilovsky, P., Kobsa, A., Nejdl, W. (eds.) Adaptive Web 2007. LNCS, vol. 4321, pp. 628–670. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marsh, S.: Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stirling (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matsuo, Y., Yamamoto, H.: Community gravity: measuring bidirectional effects by trust and rating on online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 751–760. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., Halberstadt, A.: A computational model of trust and reputation. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, pp. 2431–2439. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niu, X., McCalla, G., Vassileva, J.: Purpose-Based Expert Finding in a Portfolio Management System. Computational Intelligence 20(4), 548–561 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R.: Trust among strangers in Internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system. Advances in Applied Microeconomics: A Research Annual 11, 127–157 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rich, E.: User modeling via stereotypes. Cognitive Science 3(4), 329–354 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rich, E.: Users are individuals: individualizing user models. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 199–214 (May 1981) (1983)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sensoy, M., Zhang, J., Yolum, P., Cohen, R.: Poyraz: Context-aware service selection under deception. Computational Intelligence 25(4), 335–366 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shoham, Y., Balabanovic, M.: Fab: Content-Based, Collaborative Recommendation. Communications of the ACM 40(3), 66–72 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sleeman, D.: UMFE: a user modelling front-end subsystem. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 23(1), 71–88 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Vassileva, J.: A Classification and Synthesis of Student Modelling Techniques in Intelligent Computer-Assisted Instruction. In: Norrie, D.H., Six, H.-W. (eds.) ICCAL 1990. LNCS, vol. 438, pp. 202–213. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vassileva, J.I., Greer, J.E., McCalla, G.I.: Openness and Disclosure in Multi-agent Learner Models. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Open, Interactive, and Other Overt Approaches to Learner Modelling, International Conference on AIED, Le Mans, France, pp. 43–49 (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Villano, M.: Probabilistic student models: Bayesian belief networks and knowledge space theory. In: Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 491–498. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, Y., Vassileva, J.: Trust and reputation model in peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings Third International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P 2003), pp. 150–157 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, Y., Vassileva, J.: Bayesian network-based trust model. In: IEEE/WIC International Conference on Web Intelligence, WI 2003, pp. 372–378. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, Y., Vassileva, J.: Trust-based community formation in peer-to-peer file sharing networks. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, pp. 341–348. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yimam-Seid, D., Kobsa, A.: Expert-Finding Systems for Organizations: Problem and Domain Analysis and the DEMOIR Approach. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 13(1), 1–24 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yu, B., Singh, M.P.: A Social Mechanism of Reputation Management in Electronic Communities. In: Klusch, M., Kerschberg, L. (eds.) CIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1860, pp. 154–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabrina Nusrat
    • 1
  • Julita Vassileva
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanCanada

Personalised recommendations