Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
In this paper, we propose a new formulation of computational trust based on quantum decision theory (QDT). By using this new formulation, we can divide the assigned trustworthiness values to objective and subjective parts. First, we create a mapping between the QDT definitions and the trustworthiness constructions. Then, we demonstrate that it is possible for the quantum interference terms to appear in the trust decision making process. By using the interference terms, we can quantify the emotions and subjective preferences of the trustor in various contexts with different amounts of uncertainty and risk. The non-commutative nature of quantum probabilities is a valuable mathematical tool to model the relative nature of trust. In relative trust models, the evaluation of a trustee candidate is not only dependent on the trustee itself, but on the other existing competitors. In other words, the first evaluation is performed in an isolated context whereas the rest of the evaluations are performed in a comparative one. It is shown that a QDT-based model of trust can account for these order effects in the trust decision making process. Finally, based on the principles of risk and uncertainty aversion, interference alternation theorem and interference quarter law, quantitative values are assigned to interference terms. By performing empirical evaluations, we have demonstrated that various scenarios can be better explained by a quantum model of trust rather than the commonly used classical models.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., Czachor, M., D’Hooghe, B. (2011). A quantum-conceptual explanation of violations of expected utility in economics. In Proceedings of the Quantum Interaction, Aberdeen, UK: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7052, 192–198.
A. S. Ali and O. F. Rana, "A belief-based trust model for dynamic service selection," in Proceedings of the Economic Models and Algorithms for Distributed Systems, 2010, pp. 9–23.
Anderson, N. H., & Hubert, S. (1963). Effects of concomitant verbal recall on order effects in personality impression formation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 379–391. CrossRef
Ashtiani, M., & Azgomi, M. A. (2014). Contextuality, incompatibility and biased inference in a quantum-like formulation of computational trust. Advances in Complex Systems, 17(5, 1450020), 61.
Axioms of Quantum Mechanics, MIT OpenCourseWare, Available: http://ocw.mit.edu, Last Visited: (2015/02/05).
Bell, J. S. (1966). On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 447–452. CrossRef
Busacca, B., Castaldo, S. (2011). Trust in market relationships: an interpretative model. Sinergie Rivista di Studi e Ricerche, 191–227.
Busemeyer, J.R., Trueblood, J.S. (2011). Theoretical and empirical reasons for considering the application of quantum probability theory to human cognition. In Proceedings of the Quantum Cognition Meets TARK║ Workshop, Groningen, Netherlands, 12–14.
Busemeyer, J.R., Franco, R., Pothos, E.M. (2009). Quantum probability explanations for probability judgment errors. arXiv preprint arXiv, 0909.2789.
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. (2009b). Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 423–433. CrossRef
Carnal, O., & Mlynek, J. (1991). Young’s double-slit experiment with atoms: a simple atom interferometer. Physical Review Letters, 66, 2689. CrossRef
Castelfranchi, C. (2008). Reasons: belief support and goal dynamics. Mathware and Soft Computing, 3, 233–247.
Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (1998). Towards a theory of delegation for agent-based systems. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24, 141–157. CrossRef
Castelfranchi, C., Falcone,R. (2000). Trust is much more than subjective probability: Mental components and sources of trust. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, US, 10.
Castelfranchi C., & Falcone, R. (2010). Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model, Wiley, 18.
Cofta, P. (2007). Trust, complexity and control: confidence in a convergent world. Chichester: Wiley. CrossRef
DuBois,T., Golbeck, J., Srinivasan, A. (2011). Predicting trust and distrust in social networks. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), and 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) 418–424.
Eddy, D. M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, 249–267.
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777. CrossRef
ElSalamouny, E., Sassone, V., Nielsen, M. (2010). HMM-based trust model. In Proceedings of the Formal Aspects in Security and Trust, Eindhoven, Netherlands: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5983, 21–35.
Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C. (2001). Social trust: a cognitive approach. In Proceedings of the Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, Springer, 55–90.
Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C. (2012). Trust and transitivity: how trust-transfer works. In Proceedings of the Highlights on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Madrid, Spain: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 156, 179–187.
Feng, L., & Huizhong, W. (2008). Research of trust valuation based on cloud model. Engineering Sciences, 10, 84–90.
Franco, R. (2009). The conjunction fallacy and interference effects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 415–422. CrossRef
Franco, R., Busemeyer, J. (2008). A quantum probability explanation for the inverse fallacy. Psychonomic Review & Bulletin
Frankel, T. (2005). Trust and honesty: America's business culture at a crossroad. USA: Oxford University Press.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment: Cambridge University Press.
Hang, C.W., Wang, Y., Singh, M.P. (2008). An adaptive probabilistic trust model and its evaluation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 3, Estoril, Portugal, 1485–1488.
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: the belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55. CrossRef
Hoogendoorn, M., Jaffry, S. W., Treur, J. (2008). Modeling dynamics of relative trust of competitive information agents. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents XII (CIA'2008), Prague, Czech Republic, Sept. 10–12. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 5180:55–70.
Hoogendoorn, M., Jaffry, S.W., Treur, J. (2008). Modeling dynamics of relative trust of competitive information agents. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents XII (CIA’2008), Prague, Czech Republic: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5180, 55–70.
Hoogendoorn, M., Jaffry, S.W., Treur, J. (2010). Incorporating interdependency of trust values in existing trust models for trust dynamics. In Proceedings of the Trust Management IV, Morioka, Japan: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 321,263–276.
Hoogendoorn, M., Jaffry, S.W., Van Maanen, P.P., Treur, J. (2011). Modeling and validation of biased human trust. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, Lyon, France. 256–263.
Huang, H., & Wang, R. (2008). Subjective trust evaluation model based on membership cloud theory. Journal of Communication, 29, 13–19.
Klüwer, J.W., Waaler, A. (2006). Relative trustworthiness. In Proceedings of the Formal Aspects in Security and Trust, Newcastle, UK: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3866, 158–170.
Klüwer, J.W., Waaler, A. (2006). Trustworthiness by default. In Proceedings of the Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, London, UK: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3900, 96–111.
Lesani, M., Bagheri, S. (2006). Fuzzy trust inference in trust graphs and its application in semantic web social networks. In Proceedings of the World Automation Congress (WAC’06), Budapest, Hungary 1–6.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438–458.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. J. (2012). The social dynamics of trust: theoretical and empirical research. Social Forces, 91, 25–31. CrossRef
Marsh, S., Dibben, M.R. (2005). Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust–an exploration of the dark (er) side. In Proceedings of the Trust Management, Paris, France: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3477, 17–33.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123. CrossRef
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,709–734.
Nguyen, H.T., Zhao, W., Yang, J. (2010). A trust and reputation model based on bayesian network for Web services. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), Miami, US, 251–258.
Nielsen M. A., & Chuang I. L. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: Cambridge university press.
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of rational decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282, 2171–2178. CrossRef
Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207. CrossRef
Shi, J., Bochmann, G. V., & Adams, C. (2005). A trust model with statistical foundation. Proceedings of the Formal Aspects in Security and Trust, 173, 145–158. CrossRef
Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognitive Science, 35, 1518–1552. CrossRef
Verbiest, N., Cornelis, C., Victor, P., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2012). Trust and distrust aggregation enhanced with path length incorporation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 202, 61–74. CrossRef
Yao, Y., Tong, H., Yan, X., Xu, F., Lu, J. (2013). Multi-aspect+ transitivity+ bias: an integral trust inference model. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 90.
Yukalov, V., & Sornette, D. (2008). Quantum decision theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:0802.3597.
Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2008b). Quantum decision theory as quantum theory of measurement. Physics Letters A, 372, 6867–6871. CrossRef
Yukalov, V., & Sornette, D. (2009a). Physics of risk and uncertainty in quantum decision making. The European Physical Journal B, 71, 533–548. CrossRef
Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2009b). Processing information in quantum decision theory. Entropy, 11, 1073–1120. CrossRef
Yukalov, V., & Sornette, D. (2010a). Entanglement production in quantum decision making. Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 73, 559–562. CrossRef
Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2010b). Mathematical structure of quantum decision theory. Advances in Complex Systems, 13, 659–698. CrossRef
Yukalov, V., & Sornette, D. (2011). Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision, 70, 283–328. CrossRef
Yukalov, V., & Sornette, D. (2012). Quantum decision making by social agents. Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper.
Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2014). Manipulating decision making of typical agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 44, 1155–1168. CrossRef
- A formulation of computational trust based on quantum decision theory
Mohammad Abdollahi Azgomi
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com