Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model Hui Fang, Jie Zhang, Murat S¸ensoy, and Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann {
[email protected]} IMI & SCE, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
August 14, 2012
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
1 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Outline
1 Motivation & Objectives 2 Related Work 3 Approach: Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model 4 Experimentation 5 Conclusions and Future Work
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
2 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Motivation & Objectives
Model trustworthiness of sellers: Experienced sellers Sufficient past experience Reputation systems
Inexperienced sellers No or little past experience Stereotypical trust models
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
3 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Motivation & Objectives
Stereotypical trust model for a buyer: Basic assumptions Seller behavior follows certain patterns Evaluation on a new seller influenced by past experience
Machine Learning on his own experience Cold start problem Insufficient past experience with sellers Can not learn accurate trust stereotypes Collect other buyers’ experience Users’ subjectivity difference
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
4 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Motivation & Objectives
A generalized stereotypical trust model for cold start problem: Build a semantic ontology Represent sellers’ attributes in e-marketplaces
Fuzzy semantic decision tree (FSDT) with limited experience Fuzzy process: generalize over non-nominal attributes Semantic process: generalize over nominal attributes
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
5 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Related Work Stereotypical trust models: Burnett et al. (2010) [1] Use M5 tree to learn stereotypes Integrate with probabilistic trust model
Liu et al. (2009) [2] Apply traditional machine learning tools Directly predict successfulness of transactions
Collect other buyers’ experience for cold start problem Limitations Users’ subjectivity difference problem Manually identify attributes
Our approach Only use a buyer’s own experience Ontological reasoning .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
6 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Related Work Stereotype-based user modeling, e.g.: Rich (1979) [3] Manually construct users’ stereotypes User’s socio-demographic characteristics
Ardissono et al. (2003) [4] Personalized electronic guides for digital TV Stereotypical user model with machine learning
Limitations Focus on socio-demographic characteristics Cold start problem
Our approach Also consider attributes related to sellers’ selling behavior Address cold start problem .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
7 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Semantic Ontology .
Represent the hierarchical relationships among attribute values Automatically identify seller attributes and values Ontological reasoning technique helps our semantic process Thing isA
isA
Seller
hasProperty
Property isA
isA
sellingProperty
socio-demographicProperty isA
gender
isA
isA
systemAge
...
price
location
ocean
isA
category
deliveryType
...
continent Africa China
Asia Singapore
Japan
Europe Spain
UK
Figure: An Example Semantic Ontology of Seller Attributes in E-marketplaces
.
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
8 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Fuzzy Semantic Decision Tree Learning
Goal of stereotypical learning
− → F : A → Ts − → A : attribute vector describing seller information Ts : the trust degree (ranged in [0, 1]) for the seller
Our approach: FSDT to learn function F Basic decision tree learning + two additional processes Fuzzy process for non-nominal attributes Semantic process for nominal attributes
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
9 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Fuzzy Process Generate fuzzy decision tree (Figure 2(a)): Extend the fuzzy method [5] with non-nominal attributes Piecewise Linear Membership function (Figure 2(b)) Instances in [α − β/2, α + β/2] to both the successors
Traditional decision tree with nominal attributes T1: 100 0.66 Singapore T2: 70
α
location β
0.88
α-β/2 L2: 66
110
L3: 10
UK
L1: 30 0.00
α+β/2
0.1
(a) A Fuzzy Decision Tree Example
Piecewise linear 1 0.5 0
(b) Piecewise Linear Membership .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
attribute
α β
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
10 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Fuzzy Process Split Criterion: minimize the mean square error (MSE) ∑ ˆ L )2 MSE(S, a) = mean[ µS (i) × (Ti − T i∈SL
+
∑
(3.1)
ˆ R )2 ] µS (i) × (Ti − T
i∈SR
MSE(S, a) = mean[
∑
ˆ i )2 ] µS (i) × (Ti − T
(3.2)
i∈S
ˆL + [1 − µ(i, a, α, β)] × T ˆR ˆi = µ(i, a, α, β) × T T
(3.3)
where a is a certain attribute; Learn (α, β) for each non-nominal attribute a .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
11 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Fuzzy Process
Contribution of fuzzy process: Improve performance of stereotypical learning Intuition Both groups with corresponding membership degree Fuzzy area With limited experience Difficult to precisely classify inexperience seller
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
12 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Semantic Process Based on fuzzy decision tree: Exploit hierarchial relationships among attribute values Generalize over the values of nominal attributes Replace specific values with more general one Without significant decrease of classification performance E.g, a location ontology Thing DeliveryType
...
Location
Continent Asia
Africa China
Ocean
Singapore
Europe
Japan
UK
Spain
Figure: A Location Ontology .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
13 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Semantic Process
T1: 100
T1: 100 0.66
0.66 Singapore location T2: 70
α
β
0.88
α-β/2 L2: 66
110
L3: 10
L1: 30 0.00
α+β/2
T2: 70
α
(a) Fuzzy Decision Tree
Location
110
0.98
0.1
L2: 66
L3: 10
L1: 30 0.00
(b) Fuzzy Semantic Decision Tree
Contribution of semantic process Can predict the trustworthiness of inexperienced sellers with unmet values for nominal attributes .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
14 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Simulation Simulated e-marketplace: 100 sellers and 20 buyers Sellers provide products of different quality Five attributes: location, system age, price, delivery type and number of items sold Buyers have different subjectivity
Benchmark Comparisons Baseline: random with memory SR: Burnett et al.’s approach [1] FUZZY: only fuzzy process SEMANTIC: only semantic process
Parameters Degree of buyer subjectivity difference Value ranges of non-nominal attributes The number of possible values of nominal attributes .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
15 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Experimental Results Our model performs better than SR and Baseline (Figure 3(c)) Both the fuzzy and semantic process contribute to performance improvement (Figure 3(d)) FUZZY and SEMANTIC outperform the SR approach (Figures 3(c) and 3(d)) 0.7
0.7 Our Model SR Baseline
Our Model SEMANTIC FUZZY
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
MAE
MAE
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0 0
10
20
30
40
50 60 Epoch
70
80
90
(c) FSDT vs. SR vs. Baseline
100
0
10
20
30
50 60 Epoch
70
80
90
100
(d) FSDT vs. FUZZY vs. Semantic .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
40
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
16 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Experimental Results Worse than Reputation-based method and SR when |d| is small, better when |d| gets larger Our Model SR Reputation
0.14 0.12
MAE
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
|d|
Figure: Varying degree of buyer subjectivity difference
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
17 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Experimental Results Figure 4(a) FUZZY performs better than SR Verify the generalization capability of the fuzzy process
Figure 4(b) SEMANTIC performs better than SR Verify the generalization capability of the semantic process The generalization capability increases as the number increases 0.3
0.3 FUZZY SR Performance Gap
0.25
0.25 0.2 MAE
MAE
0.2 0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
SEMANTIC SR Performance Gap
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 Value Range of Non-Nominal Attributes
30
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Possible Values for Nominal Attributes
(a) Varying the value ranges of non-(b) Varying the number of possible nominal attributes values of nominal attributes .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
18 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Conclusions
Contribution of our approach: Propose a novel generalized stereotypical trust model Fuzzy process on non-nominal attributes Semantic process on nominal attributes
Address the cold start problem for stereotypes learning When buyers have limited experience
Verify the effectiveness of FSDT by experiments More accurately evaluate trustworthiness of inexperience sellers Robust with regard to the change of training data set
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
19 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Future Work
Conduct more experiments More scenarios in the simulated e-marketplaces Real data (e.g., eBay)
Use other membership functions e.g., triangular and trapezoidal membership function
Consider multi-nominal trust degrees
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
20 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
Thanks! Any Questions?
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
21 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
C. Burnett, T. J. Norman, and K. Sycara. Bootstrapping trust evaluations through stereotypes. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), 2010. X. Liu, A. Datta, K. Rzadca, and E.P. Lim. Stereotrust: a group based personalized trust model. in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), 2009. E. Rich. User modeling via stereotypes. Cognitive Science, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 329 C354, 1979. L. Ardissono, C. Gena, P. Torasso, F. Bellifemine, A. Chiarotto, D. A., and B. Negro. Personalized recommendation of tv programs. in Proceedings of the 8th Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 2003. .
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
21 / 21
Motivation RelatedWork Approach Experiment Conclusion
C. Olaru and L. Wehenkel. A complete fuzzy decision tree technique. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 138, pp. 221 C254, 2003.
.
H. Fang, J. Zhang, M. S ¸ ensoy, N. Thalmann
.
.
.
A Generalized Stereotypical Trust Model
.
.
21 / 21