Behavioural Evaluation of Reputation-Based Trust Systems

  • Sini Ruohomaa
  • Lea Kutvonen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 144)


In the field of trust and reputation systems research, there is a need for common and more mature evaluation metrics for the purpose of producing meaningful comparisons of system proposals. In the state of the art, evaluations are based on simulated comparisons of how quickly negative reputation reports spread in the network or which decision policy gains more points against others in a specific gamelike setting, for example. We propose a next step in identifying criteria for a maturity model on the behavioural analysis of reputation-based trust systems.


Trust management reputation systems inter-enterprise collaboration simulation-based benchmarking attack models 


  1. 1.
    Gollmann, D.: From Access Control to Trust Management, and Back – A Petition. In: Wakeman, I., Gudes, E., Jensen, C.D., Crampton, J. (eds.) IFIPTM 2011. IFIP AICT, vol. 358, pp. 1–8. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marsh, S., Basu, A., Dwyer, N.: Rendering unto Cæsar the Things That Are Cæsar’s: Complex Trust Models and Human Understanding. In: Dimitrakos, T., Moona, R., Patel, D., McKnight, D.H. (eds.) IFIPTM 2012. IFIP AICT, vol. 374, pp. 191–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruohomaa, S.: The effect of reputation on trust decisions in inter-enterprise collaborations. PhD thesis, University of Helsinki, Department of Computer Science (May 2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zibuschka, J., Roßnagel, H.: On some conjectures in IT security: the case for viable security solution. In: Sicherheit, Schutz und Zuverlässigkeit (SICHERHEIT 2012), Bonn, Germany. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. P-195. Gesellschaft für Informatik (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonneau, J., Herley, C., van Oorschot, P.C., Stajano, F.: The quest to replace passwords: A framework for comparative evaluation of web authentication schemes. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, San Francisco, California, USA, pp. 553–567 (May 2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L.: Trust and distrust in adaptive inter-enterprise collaboration management. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 5(2), 118–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kerr, R., Cohen, R.: Smart cheaters do prosper: Defeating trust and reputation systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009), Budapest, Hungary, vol. 2, pp. 993–1000. ACM (May 2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schlosser, A., Voss, M., Brückner, L.: On the simulation of global reputation systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(1) (January 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farmer, F.R., Glass, B.: Building Web Reputation Systems. O’Reilly (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yao, Y., Ruohomaa, S., Xu, F.: Addressing common vulnerabilities of reputation systems for electronic commerce. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 7(1), 1–15 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Douceur, J.R.: The Sybil Attack. In: Druschel, P., Kaashoek, M.F., Rowstron, A. (eds.) IPTPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2429, pp. 251–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: 6: Adversarial search. In: Artificial Intelligence — A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ruohomaa, S., Hankalahti, A., Kutvonen, L.: Detecting and Reacting to Changes in Reputation Flows. In: Wakeman, I., Gudes, E., Jensen, C.D., Crampton, J. (eds.) IFIPTM 2011. IFIP AICT, vol. 358, pp. 19–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nurmi, P.: Perseus – a personalized reputation system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, pp. 798–804. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jøsang, A., Hird, S., Faccer, E.: Simulating the Effect of Reputation Systems on E-markets. In: Nixon, P., Terzis, S. (eds.) iTrust 2003. LNCS, vol. 2692, pp. 179–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Margolin, N.B., Levine, B.N.: Quantifying Resistance to the Sybil Attack. In: Tsudik, G. (ed.) FC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5143, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Srivatsa, M., Xiong, L., Liu, L.: TrustGuard: countering vulnerabilities in reputation management for decentralized overlay networks. In: WWW 2005: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the World Wide Web, pp. 422–431. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fullam, K.K., Klos, T.B., Muller, G., Sabater, J., Schlosser, A., Topol, Z., Barber, K.S., Rosenschein, J.S., Vercouter, L., Voss, M.: A specification of the Agent Reputation and Trust (ART) testbed: experimentation and competition for trust in agent societies. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 512–518 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kerr, R., Cohen, R.: TREET: the Trust and Reputation Experimentation and Evaluation Testbed. Electronic Commerce Research 10, 217–290 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teacy, W.L., Huynh, T.D., Dash, R.K., Jennings, N.R., Luck, M., Patel, J.: The ART of IAM: The winning strategy for the 2006 competition. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies, Hawaii, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U.: The nature of human altruism. Nature 425 (October 2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Akerlof, G.A.: The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3), 488–500 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaur, P., Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L.: Enabling user involvement in trust decision making for inter-enterprise collaborations. International Journal on Advances In Intelligent Systems 5(3&4), 533–552 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sini Ruohomaa
    • 1
  • Lea Kutvonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations