=Paper= {{Paper |id=Vol-485/paper-14 |storemode=property |title=A Collaborative System Based on Reputation for Wide-Scale Public Participation |pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-485/paper1-S.pdf |volume=Vol-485 |dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/um/FernandezH09 }} ==A Collaborative System Based on Reputation for Wide-Scale Public Participation== https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-485/paper1-S.pdf
Workshop on Adaptation and Personalization for Web 2.0, UMAP'09, June 22-26, 2009




                             A Collaborative System Based on Reputation for
                                    Wide-Scale Public Participation

                                                Ana Fernández1 and Jens Hardings1
                       1
                           Departamento de Ciencia de la Computación, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
                                       Vicuña Mackenna 4860 (143), Macul, Santiago, Chile
                                                       {asfernan, jhp}@ing.puc.cl



                           Abstract. The aim of this paper is to use a reputation system to promote trust
                           among participants of an online social network. By the use of past behaviour
                           and ratings from other users, this paper presents a novel metric to compute the
                           reputation of peers. Also a prototype and deployment results are included.

                           Keywords: Reputation system, public participation, e-democracy.




                  1 Introduction

                     This article proposes the use of a reputation system to promote trust among
                  participants and the system construction over an online social network.
                     Although reputation systems are being used in several fields, it has not yet been
                  implemented in politics and citizen participation. We have not found other attempts
                  of reputation systems for the world of politics in order to promote participation and e-
                  democracy between peers.
                     Reference [1] defines e-democracy as the sum of acts realized by individuals or
                  groups in order to influence the way the political system operates. Due to the Internet,
                  citizens can easily access political content and such an increased access to political
                  information should extend governmental transparency and thus democracy.
                     In reference [2], a proposal over the Internet where players have to cope with
                  uncertainty from quality of products and trustworthiness of participants is presented.
                  The method to address this predicament is to use feedback ratings about past
                  behaviour to make recommendations about who to trust.
                     In reference [3] a proposal for the use of reputation systems in Communities of
                  Practice (CoPs) was presented in order to assist users in creating relationships for
                  honest and useful participation, based on trust, for the benefit of the entire
                  community. Indeed [3] presents a simple reputation calculation based only in the
                  median of past reputations.
                     In [4] we have used reputation systems in a Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET)
                  which is a low complexity system. But in this paper we offer a generalisation of the
                  use of reputation systems to a more complex framework represented by the world of
                  politics with the aim to promote participation and e-democracy between peers.




                                                                130
Workshop on Adaptation and Personalization for Web 2.0, UMAP'09, June 22-26, 2009




                     The paper is organized as follows: section 2 presents reputation systems concepts
                  and issues; section 3 presents the proposed reputation model with its respective
                  reputation metric; section 4 presents the deployed system; and finally, section 5
                  discusses our conclusions.


                  2 Reputation Systems

                     Many interactions in real world are based on rumours or on friends’ experiences.
                  As a result of this, future interactions can be influenced by past interactions. We call
                  this the reputation of a user. Keeping that in mind we can build a system that collects,
                  processes and distributes information about the quality of interactions. Referring to
                  [5], we call such system a “reputation system”. Reputation systems are well suited for
                  stimulating social control within online communities. The idea is to let parties rate
                  each other and use those ratings to derive a reputation score, which can assist other
                  parties in deciding whether or not to transact with that party in the future [6].
                     Reputation systems need models in order to calculate the reputation of its users,
                  that is, a way to obtain a qualification for each individual, using information stored in
                  the system. Many reputation models have been proposed for online environments
                  systems throughout the past years, but there is not an accepted common model yet.


                  3 Proposed Reputation Model

                      In our model we identified several factors that influence on the reputation of a user
                  in the system which will be described as follows.
                      Whenever a user participates in the system he should be rewarded. A good way to
                  measure the participation is by the relative contribution factor which will be the
                  amount of actions executed by a user over the amount of total actions. We will denote
                   C iP as the relative contribution factor for participation which has been divided in m
                  areas, where m represents the amount of participation dimensions measured by the
                  system, and its values will satisfy 0  CiP  1 for i  1,..., m . Each contribution
                  should have different importance in the system, for such reason we will identify  i as
                  the importance weight of CiP which values will go between 0 and 1. We then define
                  the participating reputation RP of user a as:

                                                RP a     i CiP a 
                                                           m
                                                                                                      (1)
                                                          i 1

                     Certain users have the ability to generate participation in others and such ability
                  should be rewarded by the system. In a similar way to participating reputation, C iL
                  represents the contribution factor for leadership which will be sorted out in n
                  different areas, where n represents the amount of leadership dimensions and its




                                                                 131
Workshop on Adaptation and Personalization for Web 2.0, UMAP'09, June 22-26, 2009




                  values will satisfy 0  CiL  1 for i  1,..., n . We will define  i as the weight of
                   CiL in the system which values will go between 0 and 1. The leadership reputation
                   RL of user a will then be defined as:

                                                  RL a     i CiL a  .
                                                                  n
                                                                                                         (2)
                                                                 i 1

                    Users in the system can be qualified by others for a performed activity. Agent a
                  will be rated and given a qualification q  Q where Q  1,0 which represent a
                  positive or negative qualification respectively. Qa represents the time-sorted list of
                  qualifications of user a assigned by other users where Qa 1 is the oldest rate and
                  Qa h  is the most recent. Each user in the system will have an ordered list used to
                  store his last h qualifications. When a new qualification h  1 arrives, the oldest one
                  comes out of the list like a FIFO array.
                     Agents will behave more probably like they did in their most recent transactions.
                  Therefore we chose a metric called BlurredSquared [7] which computes a weighted
                  sum of all ratings. The older a rating is, the less it influences the current reputation. In
                  our particular case the reputation will only be calculated with the last h qualifications.
                     The peer reputation RQ of user a will then be defined as:

                                                                        Qa  j 
                                               RQ a   
                                                             h
                                                                                        .                (3)
                                                                  
                                                            j 1 h  j  1         2
                     The chosen model is based in the one described in [8]. The essential distinction
                  between that metric and ours is that this novel metric considers qualifications from
                  other nodes assigning more importance to the most recent ones.
                     We will define F as a function that determines the level of recent activity of a
                  certain node. Let T a  be the residential time of user a in the system and let k be a
                  discount factor between 0 and 1 that will be chosen in order to decrease the level of
                  participation when the time spent in the system is higher and increase it when it is
                  shorter. The level of recent activity for user a will be:

                                             F a   RP a   R L a   k T a  .                    (4)

                    Our model computes the global reputation or trust of a user based on two factors:
                  past qualifications and level of recent activity. Trust for user a will be calculated as:

                                                             RQ a 1 F a   1
                                             Trust a                                     .            (5)
                                                                      RQ a   1




                                                                        132
Workshop on Adaptation and Personalization for Web 2.0, UMAP'09, June 22-26, 2009




                  4 Deployed System

                     The proposed system was implemented in the Alumni Center of the Faculty of
                  Engineering of Universidad Católica de Chile using the well-known social network
                  Facebook. Such implementation offers a participation platform for students as it
                  permits them to express their concerns and ideas and allows others to vote or
                  comment about them. The previously described model was applied in order to
                  determine the improvement of trust among peers.
                     Figure 1 shows the evolution of trust for several users. Initially all users begin with
                  the same trust value. Their behaviour in the system and the qualifications assigned by
                  others determines the progress of their trust. User 1 has an increasing participation
                  and leadership reputation as well as a good reputation among other peers; therefore
                  his level of trust increases significantly over time. User 2 presents a decreasing
                  participating reputation but an incremental leadership and a high reputation. Finally
                  User 3 has a poor participation in the system and is not well qualified by others for
                  that reason it presents a decreasing trust value as time passes by.

                                       1,6

                                       1,5

                                       1,4
                                                                                               User 1
                               Trust




                                       1,3                                                     User 2
                                                                                               User 3
                                       1,2

                                       1,1

                                        1
                                                                Time



                                             Fig. 1. Evolution of trust for different users.




                  5 Conclusions

                     This paper reflects the behaviour of a user in the system and the quality of his
                  contribution in his trust value. As a direct consequence arises the fact that users with
                  high level of trust are comparatively better users and therefore will eventually come
                  with good ideas that could be used as part of future policies in the world of politics.
                     From simulation we can conclude that good behaviour in the past and the use of
                  ratings from other participants is a high-quality metric in a social network.
                     A trust-based system built over a well-known social network brings a great
                  opportunity to participate for all interested users as well as an opportunity to identify
                  high-quality users whom may become in the leaders for tomorrow.




                                                                  133
Workshop on Adaptation and Personalization for Web 2.0, UMAP'09, June 22-26, 2009




                  References

                  1. Hagen, M.: Elektronische Demokratie: Comput-ernetzwerke und politische Theorie in den
                      USA, Lit-Verlagsgsellschaft, Hamburg (1997).
                  2. Zhang. W., Liu, L., Zhu, Y.: A Computational Trust Model for C2C Auctions. Proceedings
                      of ICSSSM '05. (2005).
                  3. Cruz, C. C. P., Gouvêa, M. T. A., Motta, C. L. R., Santoro, F. M.: Towards Reputation
                      Systems Applied to Communities of Practice. IEEE. 74-79 (2007).
                  4. Fernández, A., Hardings J.: A Protocol to Increase the Security in a MANET Based on Trust
                      and Reputation. To be presented at Tenth International Symposium on Communication
                      Theory and Applications (ISCTA ’09), 13th - 17th July, 2009, Ambleside, UK.
                  5. Zhou, R., Hwang, K.: Powertrust: A Robust and Scalable Reputation System for Trusted
                      Peer-to-Peer Computing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 460--473 (2007).
                  6. Josang, A., Haller, J.: Dirichlet Reputation Systems. The Second International Conference on
                      Availability, Reliability and Security. 112--119 (2007).
                  7. Schlosser, A., Voss, M.: Comparing and Evaluating Metrics for Reputation Systems by
                      Simulation. Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Reputation in Agent Societies.(2004).
                  8. Ren, Y., Boukerche, A.: An Efficient Trust-Based Reputation Protocol for Wireless and
                      Mobile Ad Hoc Networks: Proof and Correctness. Proceedings of the IEEE GLOBECOM,
                      (2008).




                                                               134