<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Towards Context-Enriched Trust Prediction: A Proposal</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Marcin Sydow</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Polish-Japanese Institute of Information Technology, Web Mining Lab</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Koszykowa 86, 02-008, Warszawa</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="PL">Poland</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>This short paper describes an early stage of research aiming at improving trust prediction in social networks. It builds on recent ndings on observed correlation between trust and user similarity. A machine-learning approach to the trust prediction problem with use of contextual information is proposed and experimental work envisaged. An overview of the existing results is presented and it indicates that the proposed approach constitutes a novel combination of ideas and, as such, has a potential to contribute to the previous research in the area.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>trust metrics</kwd>
        <kwd>context</kwd>
        <kwd>experimentation</kwd>
        <kwd>social networks</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>There is an explosion of interest in on-line communities where users' personal
preferences can be explicitly expressed. Trust management plays an important
role in such systems since on-line users base their decisions on information
expressed by other users. However, the amount of information contained in social
networks to be analysed by the users grows exponentially, so that there is a
strong need for developing and improving automatic techniques that support
users in making their on-line activities.</p>
      <p>An example of such automatic support is a recommender system like epinions1
or FilmTrust2. The system, given the preferences of the users and trust values
expressed among them, is capable of automatically recommending some items
to particular users. In this way, the information about trust among the users
signi cantly improves the decision-support process.</p>
      <p>The mechanism mentioned above can work quite well given that the trust
values are expressed by the users. However, since on-line communities grow
constantly, signi cant part of the users are newcomers to the system so that they
did not specify their trust to other users, yet.
?? The work is supported by the Polish Ministry of Science grant N N516 4307 33.
1 http://www.epninions.com
2 http://trust.mindswap.org/FilmTrust/</p>
      <p>Due to this problem, we study the issue which is somehow reverse to the
recommendation problem mentioned earlier. Namely, we aim at studying the
problem of how to better predict an unknown trust between a pair of users
given some additional information available in the system which we call the
contextual information.</p>
      <p>The term contextual information in social networks can be interpreted in
many ways. In the most general meaning, the context of trust in a social network
can be understood as all the information available in the social network except
the trust information itself.</p>
      <p>
        In our research, however, we plan to initially narrow the de nition of the
contextual information to the recommendations (ratings) given by the users.
Thus, our notion of the context-aware trust might di er from those considered
elsewhere, e.g. in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] or [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. This limited understanding of the trust context
de nition is partially due to the fact that quite often only the recommendation
data, except the trust data itself, is available in publicly accessible real datasets
concerning trust-related research. In particular, we plan to build user pro les
based on their recommendations, and subsequently treat such pro les as a special
kind of contextual information in the task of trust prediction.
      </p>
      <p>
        An example of a dataset, with both: trust and recommendation data
available, is the epinion dataset [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. We plan to start the experimentation with this
particular dataset.
      </p>
      <p>In future, if the results obtained for such a limited de nition of the context
of trust are encouraging and we have access to datasets with richer information,
we plan to treat the context of trust in a broader meaning.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Motivation and Related Work</title>
      <p>
        A recent study by Ziegler et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] experimentally proves, that there exists a
signi cant correlation between the trust expressed by the users and their similarity
based on the recommendations they made in the system.
      </p>
      <p>Our proposal of research builds on that nding and considers going a step
further. Namely, using the recommendations made by the users as the contextual
information we aim at predicting potentially unknown trust between users. The
main di erence is that in the cited paper merely the correlation between the
trust and the recommendation-based context is measured, while in contrast, we
plan to measure how much the context helps in a full machine-learning approach
to predicting the unknown trust value.</p>
      <p>More precisely, our research aims at experimentally comparing the predictive
value of the three groups of attributes in the machine-learning task of the trust
prediction in social networks. The three groups of attributes are:
1. the attributes based solely on the pure topology of the trust network
2. the attributes based on the contextual information. As was explained, we
plan to begin with taking the recommendation-based information to build
such attributes
3. the combined trust-based and contextual-based attributes</p>
      <p>
        One of the main goals of the proposed research is to experimentally check our
hypothesis which is as follows: a trust-predictor build on the third,
contextuallyenriched group of attributes, signi cantly outperforms the predictors build on
pure-trust and pure-contextual attributes, separately, which seems to be suggested
by the results reported in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ]
      </p>
      <p>
        A good general introduction to the trust management issues is given in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ].
Trust and distrust propagation models are proposed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] and further enhanced
in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ] in the special context of Web spam combating.
      </p>
      <p>
        The problem of pure link-based classi cation and appropriate link-based
features are discussed by Liben-Nowell et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] which proposes some measures
for analysing proximity of nodes in a social undirected network representing
coauthorship. Karamon et al. continues this research [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ], however in this work the
problem of node classi cation rather than link classi cation is discussed.
      </p>
      <p>
        Correlation between trust and user pro le similarity is discussed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] and
further studied { by means of survey-based experiments { in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. An algorithm
based on Bayesian network for trust inference is discussed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        In the time of writing, the author discovered an unpublished draft paper
concerning the problem of trust-based rating prediction and, inversely,
similaritybased trust prediction by Matsuo et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. However, the current version of the
draft does not seem to be completed (at the time of writing), for example, some
important formulae seem to need to be syntactically clari ed. However, since
there seems to be a remarkable overlap with what is proposed in our research it
seems necessary to address the issue how they relate to each other. In particular,
in its current form, the mentioned draft:
{ proposes general topology-based characteristics for trust computation, which,
for example, never propagate further than through two links. In contrast, this
paper proposes features that are especially designed to trust (and distrust)
propagation measurement and are not constrained in such a way
{ unfortunately does not address the problem of the extreme rating-data
sparsity. In practice, in most of the available datasets the ratings data is too
sparse to be directly processed. Our approach is aware of this issue and
proposes how to try to overcome this problem
{ does not seem to take into account the distrust concept
      </p>
      <p>It would be very interesting, though, to compare the nal results of the
mentioned paper, and the research envisaged here, when they are ready.</p>
      <p>
        The epinions dataset [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] was studied by Massa et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] where also the
interesting notion of \controversial users" was introduced in the context of the
adversarial behaviour of some users.
      </p>
      <p>
        The context of trust is extended by the user revision history in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] and by
the user's provenance in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ].
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Proposed Experiments</title>
      <p>As motivated at the beginning of the section 2, building on some recently
published results, as explained above, we propose to experimentally test how much
contextual information helps in trust prediction.</p>
      <p>
        We propose the following experimental scheme:
1. Data: take a real dataset concerning trust network enhanced with some kind
of contextual data such as ratings, user pro les, etc. At the beginning we
plan to experiment with the publicly available epinions dataset [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ], which
contains both trust network and user recommendations, the latter one will
be used as the contextual information
2. Sampling: from the dataset, take a random sample of user pairs for
subsequent trust-prediction task. Due to the sizes of available real datasets,
the epinions dataset in particular, sampling seems to be necessary, since
repeating the experiment on all pairs of users in the dataset3 seems to be
computationally too expensive.
3. Training-testing split: as a common technique in supervised learning, to avoid
evaluating the trust-prediction results on the same examples on which the
predictor was trained (which is referred to as the over- tting problem) split
the sample into the training and testing subsets. We plan to tune the
training/testing size ratio experimentally. The splitting should be strati ed i.e.
the proportion of the `trusting' and `distrusting' user pairs in sub-samples
should be close to that observed in the whole sample.
4. Pure trust-topology prediction baseline: predict the value of trust (or
distrust) between the nodes in the sample, based only on the trust-network
information (without taking into account the actual known trust value on
(u; v)). We propose to apply special trust-propagation techniques [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref4">4, 13</xref>
        ].
5. Pure contextual-based prediction baseline: Compute contextual features,
based on the additional information available in the dataset, such as user
recommendations, similar to those described in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15 ref2">15, 2</xref>
        ] and predict the trust
using only these features
6. Contextually-enriched predictor: combine the trust-based and context-based
features and nally train the combined trust predictor on the same sample
as above.
7. Evaluation: compare the performance of the three prediction schemes above
with use of some standard prediction-performance measures, such as
prediction accuracy, the F-measure, etc.
      </p>
      <p>The details about how the planned experiments relate to the previous research
in the area and in which way the proposed experiments are novel are described
in the following section.
3 which is O(n2) for the number of users being n</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Planned Contributions</title>
      <p>
        The experimental work proposed in this paper is expected to contribute to the
existing related research (see Section 2) in the following ways:
{ supervised machine-learning approach, to the trust-prediction problem
instead of a simple linear correlation measurement [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ]. It seems that at least
2 di erent algorithms should be tested to have more reliable results, e.g. the
Weka4 implementation of the C4.5 decision tree and SVM.
{ introduce some features based on especially designed trust-propagation
models [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref4">4, 13</xref>
        ]. Previously, only some general link-topology characteristics [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5 ref7">7, 5</xref>
        ]
were used in this context.
{ due to the extreme sparsity of the contextual data, when computing the
ratings-based similarity between the users, we propose to rst cluster the
rated items with a method which is aware of the bi-partite structure of the
rating graph. Independently, some dimension-reduction techniques such as
SVD can be subsequently considered, if needed, to make the user pro les
more overlapping. If a hierarchical categorisation of the rated items is
available in the datasets, it should be used as well (as in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ]). Similar techniques
concerning clustering the users could be considered. Due to this, the
experiments can take into account also the users with little (or no) overlap in the
rating-based pro les, in contrast to the previously reported approaches.
{ in case such data is available, introduce a distrust prediction, which is a
mathematically di erent task to trust prediction (e.g. distrust does not seem
to allow for simple transitive propagation, in contrast to trust)
{ when using rating data, take into account the true meaning of the values.
      </p>
      <p>Some previous approaches seem to not distinguish between `positive' and
`negative' interpretation of the numerical values assigned to the ratings (and
apply e.g. a dot-product similarity measure which is wrong in this context)
{ on later stages of the research, if the textual ratings are available in the
dataset, consider textual similarity of the textual reviews to compute more
user similarity based features</p>
      <p>To the best knowledge of the author, the combination of the propositions
listed above is novel and can make the results of the proposed experimental
research a potentially valuable contribution to the current research in the area.
5</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>Based on recently reported experimental results concerning observed signi cant
correlation between user similarity and trust in social networks, a plan of further
exploration of this direction is proposed here.</p>
      <p>
        We propose a machine-learning approach to build a trust predictor and
experimentally measure how much the contextual information can improve the
4 http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka
trust prediction accuracy compared to some trust prediction models which are
based solely on pure topology of trust networks. We plan to start
experimentation on the epinions dataset [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] and initially limit the contextual information to
user recommendations, since such data is currently at our disposal.
      </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>1. http://www.trustlet.org.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Jennifer</given-names>
            <surname>Golbeck</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Trust and nuanced pro le similarity in online social networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>Technical report.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Jennifer</given-names>
            <surname>Golbeck</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Combining provenance with trust in social networks for semantic web content ltering</article-title>
          .
          <source>In IPAW</source>
          , pages
          <volume>101</volume>
          {
          <fpage>108</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Guha</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Ravi Kumar, Prabhakar Raghavan, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Andrew</given-names>
            <surname>Tomkins</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Propagation of trust and distrust</article-title>
          .
          <source>In WWW '04: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web</source>
          , pages
          <volume>403</volume>
          {
          <fpage>412</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2004</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Karamon</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Matsuo</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Yamamoto</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Ishizuka</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Generating social network features for link-based classi cation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In PKDD</source>
          , pages
          <volume>127</volume>
          {
          <fpage>139</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
            <surname>Kuter</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Golbeck</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Sunny: A new algorithm for trust inference in social networks using probabilistic con dence models</article-title>
          .
          <source>In AAAI</source>
          , pages
          <volume>1377</volume>
          {
          <fpage>1382</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>David</surname>
            Liben-Nowell and
            <given-names>Jon</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kleinberg</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The link prediction problem for social networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of CIKM '03</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>556</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>559</fpage>
          , NY, USA,
          <year>2003</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Massa</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Avesani</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Controversial users demand local trust metrics: An experimental study on epinions.com community</article-title>
          .
          <source>In AAAI</source>
          , pages
          <volume>121</volume>
          {
          <fpage>126</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Yutaka</given-names>
            <surname>Matsuo</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Hikaru</given-names>
            <surname>Yamamoto</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Measuring bidirectional e ects on trust and rating on online social networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>Unpublished.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Neisse</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Wegdam</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Dockhorn Costa</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>M. J. van Sinderen</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Context-aware management domains</article-title>
          . In B. Hulsebosch, G. Lenzini, and M. Wegdam, editors,
          <source>Proceedings of Context Awareness and Trust</source>
          <year>2007</year>
          (
          <issue>CAT07</issue>
          ),
          <source>First International Workshop on Combining Context with Trust</source>
          ,
          <source>Security and Privacy</source>
          , Moncton, Canada, volume
          <volume>269</volume>
          <source>of CEUR Workshop Proceedings</source>
          , pages
          <volume>42</volume>
          {
          <fpage>47</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nederlands</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>July 2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Sini</given-names>
            <surname>Ruohomaa</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Lea</given-names>
            <surname>Kutvonen</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Trust management survey</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the iTrust 3rd International Conference on Trust Management</source>
          ,
          <volume>23</volume>
          {
          <fpage>26</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>May</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          , Rocquencourt, France, pages
          <volume>77</volume>
          {
          <fpage>92</fpage>
          . Springer-Verlag, LNCS 3477/
          <year>2005</year>
          , May
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Sini</given-names>
            <surname>Ruohomaa</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Lea</given-names>
            <surname>Kutvonen</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Making multi-dimensional trust decisions on inter-enterprise collaborations</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Availability, Security and Reliability (ARES</source>
          <year>2008</year>
          ), pages
          <fpage>873</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>880</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Barcelona</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Spain,
          <year>March 2008</year>
          . IEEE Computer Society.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Baoning</surname>
            <given-names>Wu</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Vinay Goel, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Brian D.</given-names>
            <surname>Davison</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Propagating trust and distrust to demote web spam</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Workshop on Models of Trust for the Web</source>
          , Edinburgh, Scotland, May
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Honglei</surname>
            <given-names>Zeng</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Maher Alhossaini, Li Ding, Richard Fikes, and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Deborah L. McGuinness</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Computing Trust from Revision History</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust</source>
          ,
          <year>October 2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cai-Nicolas Ziegler</surname>
            and
            <given-names>Jennifer</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Golbeck</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Investigating interactions of trust and interest similarity</article-title>
          .
          <source>Decis. Support Syst</source>
          .,
          <volume>43</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ):
          <volume>460</volume>
          {
          <fpage>475</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>