Distributed Embedding Framework for Contextual Trust Calculus

1. Executive Summary

This report explores the concept of a distributed experiential embedding-based calculus of trust, integrating advanced machine learning techniques with distributed systems to create a robust, adaptive, and context-aware trust evaluation framework. The proposed system leverages the power of experiential embeddings to capture the dynamic, subjective nature of trust, while utilizing distributed computing principles to ensure scalability, resilience, and decentralized trust management.

The report covers the fundamental concepts, theoretical foundations, implementation strategies, and real-world applications of this innovative approach to trust evaluation. It also addresses the challenges and limitations of current systems and proposes future research directions to advance the field.

2. Introduction

Trust is a fundamental concept in human interactions and has become increasingly important in digital systems, distributed networks, and artificial intelligence. As our reliance on these systems grows, so does the need for sophisticated, adaptive, and context-aware trust evaluation mechanisms. This report introduces a novel approach to trust evaluation: a distributed experiential embedding-based calculus of trust.

This framework combines several cutting-edge concepts:

1. Experiential Embeddings: Mathematical representations that capture the temporal, contextual, and subjective aspects of trust relationships.
2. Distributed Systems: Decentralized networks of nodes that collaborate to achieve a common goal, ensuring scalability and resilience.
3. Calculus of Trust: A mathematical framework for quantifying and evaluating trust based on rational principles and empirical data.

By integrating these concepts, we aim to create a trust evaluation system that is:

• Dynamic: Adapting to changing contexts and new information in real-time.
• Subjective: Accounting for individual perspectives and experiences.
• Scalable: Capable of handling large-scale networks and complex trust relationships.
• Resilient: Resistant to manipulation and able to function in the face of partial system failures.
• Context-aware: Considering the specific domain and circumstances of each trust evaluation.

3. Fundamentals of Experiential Embeddings

Experiential embeddings are a specialized form of embeddings designed to represent trust-related experiences and interactions in a continuous vector space. Unlike traditional embeddings, which focus on static relationships, experiential embeddings are designed to capture the temporal, contextual, and subjective aspects of trust.

3.1 Definition and Characteristics

Experiential embeddings are numerical representations that encode the history of interactions, contextual factors, and subjective perceptions of trust between entities [1]. They are dynamic in nature, evolving as new interactions occur and as trust relationships change over time [2].

Key properties of experiential embeddings include:

1. Subjectivity: Trust is inherently subjective, varying between trustors and trustees even in identical contexts [3].
2. Dynamicity: Trust evolves over time based on interactions, making it essential for embeddings to adapt dynamically.
3. Context-awareness: Trust is highly context-dependent, requiring embeddings to incorporate situational factors [4].
4. Asymmetry: Trust is not necessarily reciprocal; the level of trust one entity has in another may differ from the reverse [5].

3.2 Mathematical Representation

Experiential embeddings are typically represented as dense vectors in a high-dimensional space, where each dimension encodes specific attributes or features of trust-related interactions. These embeddings are learned using neural networks or graph-based models, which optimize the representation to minimize discrepancies between predicted and observed trust levels [6].

3.3 Learning Experiential Embeddings

Several approaches can be used to learn experiential embeddings:

1. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): GNNs are particularly effective in learning experiential embeddings, as they can propagate and aggregate information across the graph structure of trust networks [7].

2. Temporal Models: Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) or Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCNs) can be used to capture the temporal dynamics of trust relationships.

3. Attention Mechanisms: Attention-based models can focus on the most relevant features or interactions when computing trust embeddings.

4. Multi-task Learning: By jointly learning to predict multiple trust-related tasks, the model can create more robust and informative embeddings.

4. Distributed Systems Architecture

The distributed nature of the proposed trust calculus system is crucial for its scalability, resilience, and ability to capture diverse trust perspectives. This section outlines the key components and principles of the distributed system architecture.

4.1 System Components

The distributed trust network consists of the following components:

1. Local Trust Nodes: Each user or entity in the system is represented as a node that maintains its own local trust database and performs local trust evaluations.

2. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Network: Nodes communicate with each other in a decentralized manner using a P2P protocol, sharing trust scores and propagating trust across the network.

3. Blockchain Layer: A blockchain can be used to ensure the integrity of trust evaluations and prevent tampering, recording trust transactions and enforcing policies through smart contracts.

4. Trust Propagation Mechanism: Graph-based algorithms propagate trust through the network, considering both direct and transitive trust relationships.

4.2 Key Characteristics

The distributed system architecture exhibits several important characteristics:

1. Decentralization: Components are distributed across multiple locations, reducing reliance on a central point of control [8].

2. Scalability: The system can expand by adding more nodes to accommodate increased workloads [9] [10].

3. Fault Tolerance: The system continues to function even if some components fail, achieved through redundancy and replication [11] [12].

4. Transparency: The distributed system aims to appear as a single coherent system to users, hiding the complexity of underlying operations [13].

4.3 Trust Management in Distributed Systems

Trust management in distributed systems involves several key components:

1. Trust Establishment: Initiating trust between nodes or users based on predefined criteria or credentials [14].

2. Trust Maintenance: Continuously monitoring and updating trust relationships to reflect current behaviors [15].

3. Trust Evaluation: Assessing the trustworthiness of nodes using metrics such as reputation, behavior, and historical interactions [16].

4. Trust Revocation: Withdrawing trust from nodes that exhibit malicious or unreliable behavior [17].

5. Trust Propagation: Distributing trust information across the network to inform other nodes [18].

5. Calculus of Trust Framework

The calculus of trust provides a mathematical foundation for quantifying and evaluating trust in a rational, systematic manner. This section outlines the key principles and components of the calculus of trust framework.

5.1 Core Principles

The calculus of trust is grounded in several core principles:

1. Rational Decision-Making: Trust is established based on a logical calculation of the potential outcomes of trusting or not trusting another party. This involves weighing the benefits of cooperation against the risks of betrayal [19] [20].

2. Deterrence and Incentives: The framework relies on the presence of deterrents (e.g., penalties for untrustworthy behavior) and incentives (e.g., rewards for trustworthy behavior) to encourage compliance and reliability [19].

3. Predictability and Consistency: Trust is built through consistent and predictable behavior over time, which reduces uncertainty and fosters confidence in the trustee [21] [22] [23].

4. Multi-dimensional Trust: Trust is evaluated across multiple dimensions (e.g., accuracy, reliability, bias), with each dimension represented in the experiential embedding.

5.2 Mathematical Foundations

The calculus of trust framework incorporates several mathematical concepts:

1. Trust as a Vector: Trust is represented as a multi-dimensional vector, capturing various aspects of trustworthiness:

   T = [T_{positive}, T_{negative}, T_{uncertainty}]

   Where:

   T_{positive} :Degree of positive trust.

   T_{{negative}} :Degree of negative trust.

   T_{{uncertainty}} :Degree of uncertainty or lack of information.

2. Trust Propagation: Transitive trust is calculated using matrix multiplication or graph-based algorithms. For example:

   T(A, C) = T(A, B) \times T(B, C)

   Where T(A, B) is the trust score from A to B, and T(B, C)
   is the trust score from B to C.

3. Trust Aggregation: When multiple trust scores are combined, weighted aggregation is often used:

   T_{total} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} w_i \times T_i

   Where w_i is the weight assigned to trust score T_i

4. Dynamic Trust Updates: Trust scores are updated based on new evidence and interactions:

   \frac{dT}{dt} = \alpha \cdot E_{\text{positive}} - \beta \cdot E_{\text{negative}} - \gamma \cdot T_{\text{uncertainty}}

   Where: E_{\text{positive}} : Positive evidence supporting the source. E_{\text{negative}} : Negative evidence contradicting the source. \alpha, \beta, \gamma : Weighting factors for positive evidence, negative evidence, and uncertainty.

5.3 Integration with Experiential Embeddings

The calculus of trust framework is integrated with experiential embeddings in several ways:

1. Embedding-based Trust Prediction: Trust scores are predicted using the similarity between experiential embeddings:

   T(A, B) = f(\text{sim}(E_A, E_B))

   Where E_A and E_B are the experiential embeddings of entities A and B, and f is a function that maps similarity to trust.

2. Context-aware Trust Evaluation: The context of a trust evaluation is incorporated into the embedding, allowing for nuanced trust calculations based on specific situations or domains.

3. Temporal Dynamics: The evolution of trust over time is captured in the experiential embedding, allowing the calculus to consider historical patterns and trends.

6. Implementation Strategies

Implementing a distributed experiential embedding-based calculus of trust requires careful consideration of various technical aspects. This section outlines key implementation strategies and considerations.

6.1 Embedding Generation and Update

1. Initial Embedding: When a new entity joins the network, an initial embedding is generated based on available information (e.g., credentials, initial interactions).

2. Continuous Learning: Embeddings are updated continuously as new interactions and trust evaluations occur. This can be done using online learning algorithms or periodic batch updates.

3. Multi-task Learning: The embedding model is trained to predict multiple trust-related tasks simultaneously, creating more robust and informative representations.

6.2 Distributed Trust Evaluation

1. Local Computation: Each node performs local trust evaluations using its own experiential embeddings and the embeddings of directly connected nodes.

2. Trust Propagation: Nodes share trust scores and embeddings with their neighbors, allowing trust to propagate through the network.

3. Consensus Mechanisms: In cases where global trust evaluation is needed, consensus algorithms (e.g., Byzantine Fault Tolerance) can be used to aggregate trust scores from multiple nodes.

6.3 Blockchain Integration

1. Trust Transactions: Significant trust updates or evaluations are recorded as transactions on the blockchain, ensuring immutability and traceability.

2. Smart Contracts: Trust policies and evaluation rules can be implemented as smart contracts, ensuring consistent enforcement across the network.

3. Decentralized Identity: Blockchain-based decentralized identity systems can be used to authenticate entities and manage their associated embeddings.

6.4 Privacy and Security Considerations

1. Homomorphic Encryption: Trust calculations can be performed on encrypted embeddings using homomorphic encryption techniques, preserving privacy.

2. Differential Privacy: Noise can be added to embeddings or trust scores to prevent the extraction of sensitive information about individual interactions.

3. Secure Multi-party Computation: SMPC protocols allow nodes to jointly compute trust scores without revealing their individual inputs.

6.5 Scalability Optimizations

1. Sharding: The network can be divided into shards, with each shard managing a subset of the trust relationships.

2. Hierarchical Trust Evaluation: A hierarchical structure can be implemented, where trust is first evaluated within local clusters before propagating to higher levels.

3. Caching and Approximation: Frequently used trust scores and embeddings can be cached, and approximation algorithms can be used for large-scale computations.

7. Applications and Case Studies

The distributed experiential embedding-based calculus of trust has potential applications across various domains. This section explores some key applications and presents relevant case studies.

7.1 Decentralized Finance (DeFi)

In DeFi systems, trust is crucial for ensuring the security and reliability of financial transactions. The proposed trust framework can be applied to:

1. Peer-to-Peer Lending: Trust scores derived from experiential embeddings can help lenders assess the creditworthiness of borrowers, especially in the absence of traditional credit scores.

2. Liquidity Pools: Trust evaluations can be used to assess the reliability of liquidity providers and the stability of pools.

3. Governance: In decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), trust scores can inform voting power and proposal evaluation.

Case Study: Trust in P2P Lending Platforms Research has shown that trust in P2P lending platforms is influenced by regional social capital, which affects funding success and default rates [24] [25]. A distributed experiential embedding-based trust system could capture these regional variations and social dynamics, providing more accurate risk assessments for lenders and borrowers.

7.2 Supply Chain Management

Trust is essential in supply chain management to ensure the authenticity and quality of products. The proposed framework can enhance trust in supply chains by:

1. Supplier Evaluation: Experiential embeddings can capture the historical performance and reliability of suppliers across various dimensions (e.g., quality, timeliness, compliance).

2. Product Traceability: Trust scores associated with each step of the supply chain can provide confidence in the authenticity and quality of products.

3. Risk Assessment: Trust evaluations can help identify potential risks or vulnerabilities in the supply chain network.

Case Study: Blockchain in Wine Supply Chains A study of two wine supply chains demonstrated how blockchain technology improves trust among participants by providing a shared, immutable ledger [26] [27]. The addition of experiential embeddings to this system could further enhance trust evaluation by capturing the nuanced relationships and historical performance of each entity in the supply chain.

7.3 Social Networks and Online Communities

In social networks and online communities, trust plays a crucial role in user interactions, content sharing, and information dissemination. The proposed framework can be applied to:

1. User Reputation Systems: Experiential embeddings can provide nuanced, context-aware reputation scores for users based on their interactions and contributions.

2. Content Credibility Assessment: Trust scores derived from author embeddings can help evaluate the credibility of shared content.

3. Community Moderation: Trust-based metrics can assist in identifying trustworthy moderators and assessing the reliability of user reports.

Case Study: Trust in Online Marketplaces E-commerce platforms like eBay and Amazon employ reputation systems to build trust between buyers and sellers [28]. The integration of experiential embeddings into these systems could provide more nuanced trust evaluations, considering factors such as transaction history, review quality, and contextual information.

7.4 Internet of Things (IoT)

In IoT environments, establishing trust between devices is crucial for secure communication and reliable operation. The proposed framework can enhance IoT trust management by:

1. Device Authentication: Experiential embeddings can capture the behavior and reliability of devices over time, providing a more robust authentication mechanism.

2. Data Integrity Verification: Trust scores can be used to assess the reliability of data sources and detect potential anomalies or malicious activities.

3. Dynamic Access Control: Trust evaluations can inform access control decisions, allowing for more flexible and context-aware security policies.

Case Study: Trust in Social IoT (SIoT) Trust models in SIoT systems evaluate trust based on social relationships, past reputation, and recommendations [29]. The integration of experiential embeddings into these models could capture more complex relationships and behavioral patterns, leading to more accurate and adaptive trust evaluations in dynamic IoT environments.

7.5 Autonomous Systems and Robotics

Trust is a critical factor in the adoption and effective operation of autonomous systems and robots. The proposed framework can contribute to:

1. Human-Robot Interaction: Experiential embeddings can model the evolving trust relationship between humans and robots, adapting robot behavior accordingly.

2. Swarm Robotics: Trust evaluations can inform collaboration and task allocation decisions in robot swarms.

3. Autonomous Vehicle Networks: Trust scores can enhance the reliability of information sharing between vehicles and infrastructure.

Case Study: Trust in VANETs Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs) use blockchain-based trust models to ensure reliable data acquisition and secure communication among vehicles [30] [31]. The addition of experiential embeddings to these systems could provide more nuanced trust evaluations, considering factors such as driving behavior, data quality, and contextual information.

8. Challenges and Limitations

While the distributed experiential embedding-based calculus of trust offers significant advantages, it also faces several challenges and limitations that need to be addressed:

8.1 Computational Complexity

1. High-Dimensional Embeddings: Processing and updating high-dimensional experiential embeddings for large numbers of entities can be computationally expensive.

2. Real-time Updates: Maintaining up-to-date embeddings and trust evaluations in real-time for dynamic, large-scale networks is challenging.

3. Scalability: As the network grows, the computational requirements for trust propagation and consensus mechanisms increase significantly.

8.2 Data Sparsity and Cold Start Problem

1. Limited Interactions: In many scenarios, entities may have limited interactions, leading to sparse data for generating accurate embeddings.

2. New Entities: Generating meaningful embeddings for new entities with no prior interaction history (cold start problem) remains challenging.

3. Domain-Specific Data: Obtaining sufficient domain-specific data to train accurate embeddings for specialized applications can be difficult.

8.3 Privacy and Security Concerns

1. Data Sensitivity: Experiential embeddings may encode sensitive information about entities’ behaviors and interactions, raising privacy concerns.

2. Attacks on Embeddings: Adversaries may attempt to manipulate embeddings or exploit them to extract sensitive information.

3. Centralization Risks: Despite the distributed nature of the system, certain components (e.g., embedding models) may introduce centralization risks.

8.4 Interpretability and Explainability

1. Black Box Models: The complex nature of high-dimensional embeddings and neural network models can make trust evaluations difficult to interpret and explain.

2. Trust Composition: Understanding how different factors contribute to the final trust score in a multi-dimensional embedding space is challenging.

3. Regulatory Compliance: In some domains, the lack of explainability may pose challenges for regulatory compliance.

8.5 Contextual Adaptation

1. Domain Transfer: Adapting embeddings and trust models across different domains or contexts while preserving learned trust information is difficult.

2. Dynamic Contexts: Rapidly changing contexts in real-world scenarios may require frequent recalibration of the trust model.

3. Cultural and Regional Variations: Accounting for cultural and regional differences in trust perceptions within a global embedding space is challenging.

8.6 Ethical Considerations

1. Bias in Embeddings: Experiential embeddings may inadvertently encode and propagate biases present in the interaction data.

2. Fairness in Trust Evaluation: Ensuring fair trust evaluations across different groups or categories of entities is crucial but challenging.

3. Manipulation and Gaming: Entities may attempt to manipulate their behaviors to artificially improve their trust scores, potentially gaming the system.

9. Future Research Directions

To address the challenges and limitations of the distributed experiential embedding-based calculus of trust, several promising research directions can be pursued:

9.1 Advanced Embedding Techniques

1. Hierarchical Embeddings: Develop hierarchical embedding structures that can capture trust at multiple levels of granularity, from specific contexts to general trustworthiness.

2. Dynamic Embedding Updates: Investigate efficient techniques for real-time updating of embeddings in dynamic environments, possibly using incremental learning approaches.

3. Transfer Learning for Embeddings: Explore methods to transfer learned trust embeddings across different domains or applications, reducing the need for extensive retraining.

9.2 Privacy-Preserving Trust Computation

1. Federated Learning: Implement federated learning techniques to train embedding models without centralizing sensitive interaction data.

2. Differential Privacy for Embeddings: Develop methods to add controlled noise to embeddings or trust scores to preserve privacy while maintaining utility.

3. Secure Multi-Party Computation: Advance SMPC protocols for distributed trust computation that can operate efficiently at scale.

9.3 Explainable Trust Models

1. Interpretable Embeddings: Design embedding structures that allow for easier interpretation of trust factors and their contributions to overall trust scores.

2. Attention Mechanisms: Utilize attention mechanisms to highlight the most relevant factors in trust evaluations, improving explainability.

3. Rule Extraction: Develop techniques to extract interpretable rules or decision trees from complex embedding-based trust models.

9.4 Contextual and Adaptive Trust

1. Context-Aware Embeddings: Create embedding models that can dynamically adapt to different contexts or domains without losing previously learned trust information.

2. Multi-Task Learning: Explore multi-task learning approaches that can simultaneously model trust across various contexts and applications.

3. Reinforcement Learning: Investigate the use of reinforcement learning techniques to adaptively update trust models based on the outcomes of trust-based decisions.

9.5 Scalability and Efficiency

1. Distributed Embedding Computation: Develop efficient algorithms for distributed computation and updating of experiential embeddings across the network.

2. Approximate Trust Computation: Investigate approximation techniques that can provide fast, reasonably accurate trust evaluations for large-scale applications.

3. Hardware Acceleration: Explore the use of specialized hardware (e.g., TPUs, FPGAs) for accelerating embedding computations and trust evaluations.

9.6 Ethical and Fair Trust Evaluation

1. Bias Detection and Mitigation: Develop techniques to detect and mitigate biases in experiential embeddings and trust evaluations.

2. Fairness-Aware Trust Models: Design trust models that explicitly consider fairness criteria in their evaluations and decision-making processes.

3. Auditing Frameworks: Create frameworks for auditing distributed trust systems to ensure compliance with ethical standards and regulations.

9.7 Integration with Emerging Technologies

1. Quantum Computing: Explore the potential of quantum computing for generating and processing high-dimensional trust embeddings more efficiently.

2. 5G and Edge Computing: Investigate how 5G networks and edge computing can enhance the real-time capabilities of distributed trust systems, particularly in IoT and autonomous vehicle scenarios.

3. Augmented and Virtual Reality: Consider the implications and applications of experiential embedding-based trust in AR and VR environments, where rapid trust assessments may be crucial for user interactions.

10. Conclusion

The distributed experiential embedding-based calculus of trust represents a significant advancement in trust evaluation systems, offering a flexible, scalable, and context-aware approach to quantifying and managing trust in complex networks. By combining the power of experiential embeddings with distributed computing principles and a robust mathematical framework, this system has the potential to revolutionize trust management across various domains, from decentralized finance to autonomous systems.

The key strengths of this approach lie in its ability to: 1. Capture the dynamic and subjective nature of trust through high-dimensional embeddings. 2. Adapt to different contexts and domains while preserving learned trust information. 3. Operate in a distributed manner, ensuring scalability and resilience. 4. Provide a mathematical foundation for trust calculations and propagation.

However, significant challenges remain, particularly in areas of privacy preservation, interpretability, scalability, and ethical considerations. Addressing these challenges will require interdisciplinary research efforts, combining advances in machine learning, distributed systems, cryptography, and ethics.

As we continue to rely more heavily on digital systems and autonomous agents, the importance of sophisticated trust evaluation mechanisms will only grow. The distributed experiential embedding-based calculus of trust provides a promising foundation for building the next generation of trust systems, capable of handling the complexity and dynamism of our increasingly interconnected world.

References

1. Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation. https://arxiv.org
2. TrustGuard: GNN-based Robust and Explainable Trust Evaluation with Dynamicity Support. https://arxiv.org
3. Toward a Trust Evaluation Mechanism in the Social Internet of Things. https://www.mdpi.com
4. Toward a Trust Evaluation Mechanism in the Social Internet of Things. https://www.mdpi.com
5. Toward a Trust Evaluation Mechanism in the Social Internet of Things. https://www.mdpi.com
6. What are Embedding in Machine Learning? - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
7. TrustGuard: GNN-based Robust and Explainable Trust Evaluation with Dynamicity Support. https://arxiv.org
8. TrustGuard: GNN-based Robust and Explainable Trust Evaluation with Dynamicity Support. https://arxiv.org
9. TrustGuard: GNN-based Robust and Explainable Trust Evaluation with Dynamicity Support. https://arxiv.org
10. Frontiers | Developing trustworthy artificial intelligence: insights from research on interpersonal, human-automation, and human-AI trust. https://www.frontiersin.org
11. TrustGuard: GNN-based Robust and Explainable Trust Evaluation with Dynamicity Support. https://arxiv.org
12. Trust in AI: progress, challenges, and future directions | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://www.nature.com
13. A Survey on Trust Evaluation Based on Machine Learning | ACM Computing Surveys. https://dl.acm.org
14. TrustGuard: GNN-based Robust and Explainable Trust Evaluation with Dynamicity Support. https://arxiv.org
15. How do you teach AI the value of trust?. https://www.ey.com
16. What Are Distributed Systems? | Splunk. https://www.splunk.com
17. What is a distributed system? | Atlassian. https://www.atlassian.com
18. What is a Distributed System? - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
19. What Are Distributed Systems? | Splunk. https://www.splunk.com
20. What is a Distributed System? - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
21. Limitations of Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
22. What is a Distributed System? - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
23. Limitations of Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
24. What is a distributed system? | Atlassian. https://www.atlassian.com
25. What is a Distributed System? - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
26. Distributed computing - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org
27. Distributed Systems: An Introduction. https://www.confluent.io
28. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
29. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
30. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
31. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
32. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
33. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
34. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
35. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
36. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
37. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
38. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
39. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
40. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
41. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
42. Limitations of Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
43. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
44. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
45. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
46. What is a distributed system? | Atlassian. https://www.atlassian.com
47. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
48. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
49. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
50. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
51. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
52. Trust Management in Distributed Systems - GeeksforGeeks. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org
53. (PDF) A trust model for distributed systems based on reputation. https://www.researchgate.net
54. (PDF) Trust-Based Development Framework for Distributed Systems and IoT. https://www.researchgate.net
55. Types of Trust. https://jwmatterer.wordpress.com
56. Summary of “Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair”. https://www.beyondintractability.org
57. Types of Trust. https://jwmatterer.wordpress.com
58. Summary of “Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair”. https://www.beyondintractability.org
59. Calculative trust, relational trust, and organizational performance: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. https://www.sciencedirect.com
60. Types of Trust. https://jwmatterer.wordpress.com
61. The Dual Nature of Trust: Calculus-Based Trust and Identification-Based Trust. https://www.juniorleadership.net
62. [FREE] Which of the following is true about calculus-based trust? A. It is mainly based on the other party’s - brainly.com. https://brainly.com
63. Types of Trust. https://jwmatterer.wordpress.com
64. Development-based trust: proposing and validating a new trust measurement model for buyer-seller relationships. https://www.scielo.br
65. Three Stages of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships - Profolus. https://www.profolus.com
66. Types of Trust. https://jwmatterer.wordpress.com
67. The Dual Nature of Trust: Calculus-Based Trust and Identification-Based Trust. https://www.juniorleadership.net
68. Three Stages of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships - Profolus. https://www.profolus.com
69. Three Stages of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships - Profolus. https://www.profolus.com
70. Trust Equation. https://modelthinkers.com
71. The Dual Nature of Trust: Calculus-Based Trust and Identification-Based Trust. https://www.juniorleadership.net
72. The Dual Nature of Trust: Calculus-Based Trust and Identification-Based Trust. https://www.juniorleadership.net
73. Summary of “Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair”. https://www.beyondintractability.org
74. A Calculus for Trust and Reputation Systems. https://link.springer.com
75. Blockchain-based trust management in cloud computing systems: a taxonomy, review and future directions | Journal of Cloud Computing | Full Text. https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com
76. Blockchain-based trust management in cloud computing systems: a taxonomy, review and future directions | Journal of Cloud Computing | Full Text. https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com
77. Blockchain-based decentralized trust management in IoT: systems, requirements and challenges | Complex & Intelligent Systems. https://link.springer.com
78. A review of mathematical models of human trust in automation. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
79. Trust mechanisms for cloud computing - Journal of Cloud Computing. https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com
80. Trust mechanisms for cloud computing - Journal of Cloud Computing. https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com
81. Blockchain-based trust management in cloud computing systems: a taxonomy, review and future directions | Journal of Cloud Computing | Full Text. https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com
82. Blockchain-based decentralized trust management in IoT: systems, requirements and challenges | Complex & Intelligent Systems. https://link.springer.com
83. Blockchain-based decentralized trust management in IoT: systems, requirements and challenges | Complex & Intelligent Systems. https://link.springer.com
84. Blockchain-based decentralized trust management in IoT: systems, requirements and challenges | Complex & Intelligent Systems. https://link.springer.com
85. What Is Trust. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
86. Trust in the information society. https://www.sciencedirect.com
87. The impact of a blockchain platform on trust in established relationships: a case study of wine supply chains. https://www.emerald.com
88. The impact of a blockchain platform on trust in established relationships: a case study of wine supply chains. https://www.emerald.com
89. The impact of a blockchain platform on trust in established relationships: a case study of wine supply chains. https://www.emerald.com
90. The impact of a blockchain platform on trust in established relationships: a case study of wine supply chains. https://www.emerald.com
91. (PDF) The Paradoxes of Distributed Trust: Peer-to-Peer Architecture and User Confidence in Bitcoin. https://www.researchgate.net
92. (PDF) The Paradoxes of Distributed Trust: Peer-to-Peer Architecture and User Confidence in Bitcoin. https://www.researchgate.net
93. A blockchain-based trust system for decentralised applications: When trustless needs trust - ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com
94. Reflections on trusting distributed trust. https://arxiv.org
95. Reflections on trusting distributed trust. https://arxiv.org
96. Reflections on trusting distributed trust. https://arxiv.org
97. Peer-to-peer - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org
98. Social Capital, Trusting, and Trustworthiness: Evidence from Peer-to-Peer Lending | Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Cambridge Core. https://www.cambridge.org
99. Social Capital, Trusting, and Trustworthiness: Evidence from Peer-to-Peer Lending | Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Cambridge Core. https://www.cambridge.org
100. Development of a Model for Trust Management in the Social Internet of Things. https://www.mdpi.com
101. Blockchain-based decentralized trust management in IoT: systems, requirements and challenges | Complex & Intelligent Systems. https://link.springer.com
102. Blockchain-based trust management in cloud computing systems: a taxonomy, review and future directions | Journal of Cloud Computing | Full Text. https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com
103. Blockchain-based trust management in cloud computing systems: a taxonomy, review and future directions | Journal of Cloud Computing | Full Text. https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com
104. Blockchain-based trust management in cloud computing systems: a taxonomy, review and future directions | Journal of Cloud Computing | Full Text. https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com
105. Blockchain-based trust management in cloud computing systems: a taxonomy, review and future directions | Journal of Cloud Computing | Full Text. https://journalofcloudcomputing.springeropen.com
106. Fault Tolerance in Distributed Systems: Strategies and Case Studies. https://dev.to
107. Fault Tolerance in Distributed Systems: Strategies and Case Studies. https://dev.to
108. Fault Tolerance in Distributed Systems: Strategies and Case Studies. https://dev.to
109. Reflections on trusting distributed trust. https://arxiv.org
110. The impact of a blockchain platform on trust in established relationships: a case study of wine supply chains. https://www.emerald.com
111. Blockchain-based distributed management system for trust in VANET. https://www.sciencedirect.com
112. Blockchain-based distributed management system for trust in VANET. https://www.sciencedirect.com
113. Reflections on trusting distributed trust. https://arxiv.org
114. What Can You Trust in a Trustless System | S&P Global. https://www.spglobal.com
115. Making Trust Relationship For Peer To Peer System With Secure Protocol. https://www.academia.edu
116. TrustGNN: Graph Neural Network based Trust Evaluation via Learnable Propagative and Composable Nature. https://arxiv.org
117. TrustGNN: Graph Neural Network based Trust Evaluation via Learnable Propagative and Composable Nature. https://arxiv.org
118. TrustGNN: Graph Neural Network based Trust Evaluation via Learnable Propagative and Composable Nature. https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org
119. TrustGNN: Graph Neural Network based Trust Evaluation via Learnable Propagative and Composable Nature. https://arxiv.org
120. TrustGNN: Graph Neural Network based Trust Evaluation via Learnable Propagative and Composable Nature. https://arxiv.org
121. TrustGNN: Graph Neural Network based Trust Evaluation via Learnable Propagative and Composable Nature. https://arxiv.org
122. TrustGNN: Graph Neural Network-Based Trust Evaluation via Learnable Propagative and Composable Nature - PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
123. Heterogeneous network embedding enabling accurate disease association predictions - BMC Medical Genomics. https://bmcmedgenomics.biomedcentral.com
124. Heterogeneous network embedding enabling accurate disease association predictions - BMC Medical Genomics. https://bmcmedgenomics.biomedcentral.com
125. Heterogeneous network embedding enabling accurate disease association predictions - BMC Medical Genomics. https://bmcmedgenomics.biomedcentral.com
126. Heterogeneous network embedding enabling accurate disease association predictions - PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
127. Attention-based neural networks for trust evaluation in online social networks - ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com
128. A Comprehensive Survey of Recommender Systems Based on Deep Learning. https://www.mdpi.com
129. Trust-aware recommendation based on heterogeneous multi-relational graphs fusion. https://www.sciencedirect.com
130. Trust-aware recommendation based on heterogeneous multi-relational graphs fusion. https://www.sciencedirect.com
131. Trust-aware recommendation based on heterogeneous multi-relational graphs fusion. https://www.sciencedirect.com
132. Towards a Machine Learning-driven Trust Evaluation Model for Social Internet of Things: A Time-aware Approach. https://arxiv.org
133. Towards a Machine Learning-driven Trust Evaluation Model for Social Internet of Things: A Time-aware Approach. https://arxiv.org
134. Towards a Machine Learning-driven Trust Evaluation Model for Social Internet of Things: A Time-aware Approach. https://arxiv.org
135. Trust-aware recommendation based on heterogeneous multi-relational graphs fusion. https://www.sciencedirect.com
136. Toward a Distributed Trust Management System for Misbehavior Detection in the Internet of Vehicles | ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems. https://dl.acm.org
137. Data Trustworthiness Evaluation in Mobile Crowdsensing Systems with Users’ Trust Dispositions’ Consideration. https://www.mdpi.com