Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparison of six aggregation strategies to compute users' trustworthiness

  • Pierpaolo Dondio
  • , Stephen Barrett

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationCIKM'10 - Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management and Co-located Workshops
Pages1773-1776
Number of pages4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes
Event19th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management and Co-located Workshops, CIKM'10 - Toronto, ON, Canada
Duration: 26 Oct 201030 Oct 2010

Publication series

NameInternational Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Proceedings

Conference

Conference19th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management and Co-located Workshops, CIKM'10
Country/TerritoryCanada
CityToronto, ON
Period26/10/1030/10/10

Keywords

  • Argumentation theory
  • Computational trust
  • Web communities

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of six aggregation strategies to compute users' trustworthiness'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this