1 computing trust in social networks jennifer golbeck college of information studies
Post on 20-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
1
Computing Trust in Social Networks
Jennifer GolbeckCollege of Information Studies
2
Web-Based Social Networks (WBSNs)
• Websites and interfaces that let people maintain browsable lists of friends
• Last count– 245 social networking websites– Over 850,000,000 accounts– Full list at http://trust.mindswap.org
3
Using WBSNs
• Lots of users, spending lots of time creating public information about their preferences
• We should be able to use that to build better applications
• When I want a recommendation, who do I ask?– The people I trust
4
Applications of Trust
• With direct knowledge or a recommendation about how much to trust people, this value can be used as a filter in many applications
• Since social networks are so prominent on the web, it is a public, accessible data source for determining the quality of annotations and information
5
Research Areas
• Inferring Trust Relationships• Using Trust in Applications
6
Inferring Trust
The Goal: Select two individuals - the source (node A) and sink (node C) - and recommend to the source how much to trust the sink.
A B CtAB tBC
tAC
7
Methods
• TidalTrust– Personalized trust inference algorithm
• SUNNY– Bayes Network algorithm that
computes trust inferences and a confidence interval on the inferred value.
• Profile Based– Trust from similarity
8
SourceSink
9
Trust Algorithm
• If the source does not know the sink, the source asks all of its friends how much to trust the sink, and computes a trust value by a weighted average
• Neighbors repeat the process if they do not have a direct rating for the sink
10
Accuracy
• Comparison to other algorithms – Beth-Borcherding-Klein (BBK) 1994
AlgorithmNetwork TidalTrust BBKTrust Project 1.09 (.99) 1.59 (1.42)FilmTrust 1.35 (1.23) 2.75 (1.80)
11
Trust from Similarity
• We know trust correlates with overall similarity (Ziegler and Golbeck, 2006)
• Does trust capture more than just overall agreement?
• Two Part Analysis– Controlled study to find profile similarity measures
that relate to trust– Verification through application in a live system
12
Experimental Outline
• Phase 1: Rate Movies - Subjects rate movies on the list– Ratings grouped as extreme (1,2,9,10) or far
from average (≥4 different)
• Create profiles of hypothetical users – Profile is a list of movies and the
hypothetical user’s ratings of them
• Subjects rate how much they would trust the person represented by the profile– Vary the profile’s ratings in a controlled way
13
Generating Profiles
• Each profile contained exactly 10 movies, 4 from an experimental category and 6 from its complement– E.g. 4 movies with extreme ratings and 6
with non-extreme ratings
• Control for average difference, standard deviation, etc. so we could see how differences on specific categories of films affected trust
14
Example Profile
• Movies m1 through m10
• User ratings r1…r10 for m1…m10
– r1…r4 are extreme (1,2,9, or 10)
– r5…r10 are not extreme
• Profile ratings pi = ri§i
15
Results
1. Reconfirmed that trust strongly correlates with overall similarity ().
2. Agreement on extremes ()
3. Largest single difference (r)4. Subject’s propensity to trust ()
16
• When high are used on movies with extreme ratings, the trust ratings are significantly lower than when low are applied to those films
• Statistically significant for all i
Extreme Ratings
17
Maximum Difference (r)
• Holding overall agreement and standard deviation constant, trust decreased as the single largest difference between the profile and the subject (r) increased.
18
Propensity to Trust ()
19
Validation• Gather all pairs of FilmTrust users who
have a known trust relationship and share movies in common – 322 total user pairs
• Develop a formula using the experimental parameters to estimate trust
• Compute accuracy by comparing computed trust value with known value
20
In FilmTrust
Use weights (w1,w2, w3, w4, w) = (7,2,1,8,2)
Overall Similarity
Only
Our Formula
Correlation 0.24 0.73Absolute Mean Error 1.91 1.13Std. Dev of Mean Error 1.95 0.95
21
Effect of change
• If a node changes it’s trust value for another, that will propagate through the inferred values
• How far? What is the magnitude? Does the impact increase or decrease with distance?
• How does this relate to the algorithm?
• Joint work with Ugur Kuter
22
23
Algorithms Considered
• Eigentrust– Global algorithm– Like PageRank, but with weighted edges
• Advogato– Finds paths through the network– Global group trust metric that uses a set of
authoritative nodes to decide how trustworthy a person is
• TidalTrust• TidalTrust++
– No minimum distance - search the entire network
24
Initial ideas?
• The further you get from the sink, the smaller the impact.
• Changes by more central, highly connected nodes will create a bigger impact.
25
Network
26
Methodology
• Pick a pair of nodes in the network– Set trust to 0– Infer trust values between all pairs– Set trust to 1– Infer trust value between all pairs– Compare inferred values from trust=0 to
trust=1
• Repeat for every pair• Repeat for each algorithm
27
Fraction of Nodes at a Given Distance Whose Inferred Trust Value for the Sink
Changed
28
SourceSink
29
Average Magnitude of Change at a Given Distance
30
Conclusions andFuture Directions
31
Conclusions
• Trust is an important relationship in social networks.
• Social relationships are different than other common data used in CS research.
• Trust can be computed in a variety of ways
• The type of algorithm and behavior of users in the network impact the stability of trust inferences
32
Future Work - Computing with Trust
• Major categories of trust inference: global vs. local, same scale vs. new scale– All have algorithms
• Additional features (like confidence)• Hybrid approaches
– Use trust assigned by users and similarity– Use multiple relationships for better
certainty in certain domains (e.g. authority)
33
Future Work - Applications
• What sort of applications can trust be used to support?
• Recommender systems, email filtering, tagging, information ranking
• Disaster response– Highlight relevant items among vast
collections of data
34
• Jennifer Golbeck• [email protected]• http://www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck