Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Julita Vassileva

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Wang Y. Vassileva J. (2003) Trust and Reputation Model in Peer-to-Peer Networks, Proc. of IEEE Conference on P2P Computi Linkoeping, Sweden, September 2003. The peer’s needs are also different in different situations. Sometimes, it may want to know the file provider's overall capability. Sometimes it may only be interested in the file provider's capability in some particular aspect. For instance, a peer wants to download a music file from a file provider. At this time, knowing the file provider's capability in providing music files is more valuable for the peer than knowing the file provider's capability in providing movies. wor at eg. | g . ©. ft ~d

Figure 2 Wang Y. Vassileva J. (2003) Trust and Reputation Model in Peer-to-Peer Networks, Proc. of IEEE Conference on P2P Computi Linkoeping, Sweden, September 2003. The peer’s needs are also different in different situations. Sometimes, it may want to know the file provider's overall capability. Sometimes it may only be interested in the file provider's capability in some particular aspect. For instance, a peer wants to download a music file from a file provider. At this time, knowing the file provider's capability in providing music files is more valuable for the peer than knowing the file provider's capability in providing movies. wor at eg. | g . ©. ft ~d

Related Figures (4)

Figure 1. Functionality of the trust and reputation mechanism on board of the peer in each of the peers that give recommendations (we call these peers “referees”). If the referee’s recommendation is consistent with the peer’s evaluation of the interaction, the peer will increase its trust in the referee; otherwise, it will decrease its trust.
Figure 1. Functionality of the trust and reputation mechanism on board of the peer in each of the peers that give recommendations (we call these peers “referees”). If the referee’s recommendation is consistent with the peer’s evaluation of the interaction, the peer will increase its trust in the referee; otherwise, it will decrease its trust.
Figure 3. Trust and reputation system with BN vs. trust and reputation system without BN 5. Results
Figure 3. Trust and reputation system with BN vs. trust and reputation system without BN 5. Results
—_ ee eee eee ee ee eee eee Figure 3 shows that the system using Bayesian networks performs slightly better than the system with general trust in terms of the percentage of successful recommendations.
—_ ee eee eee ee ee eee eee Figure 3 shows that the system using Bayesian networks performs slightly better than the system with general trust in terms of the percentage of successful recommendations.
Figure 5. Tendency in trust and reputation systems with BN peer’s personal perspective. In our experiments, we use a very simple naive Bayesian network, which cannot represent complex relationships. In the real file-sharing system, the model of file providers might be more complex and required using a more complex Bayesian network. Our Bayesian network only involves three factors. In future, we will build a more complex Bayesian network and add more aspects into it to see how the system works.
Figure 5. Tendency in trust and reputation systems with BN peer’s personal perspective. In our experiments, we use a very simple naive Bayesian network, which cannot represent complex relationships. In the real file-sharing system, the model of file providers might be more complex and required using a more complex Bayesian network. Our Bayesian network only involves three factors. In future, we will build a more complex Bayesian network and add more aspects into it to see how the system works.
Related topics:
Data PrivacyMobile Peer-to-Peer NetworkTrust and Reputation SystemsBayesian NetworkPeer to Peer ComputingDifference-in-Differences
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved