Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A novel trust evolution algorithm based on a quantum-like model of computational trust

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Trust models play an important role in decision support systems and computational environments in general. The common goal of the existing trust models is to provide a representation as close as possible to the social phenomenon of trust in computational domains. In recent years, the field of quantum decision making has been significantly developed. Researchers have shown that the irrationalities, subjective biases, and common paradoxes of human decision making can be better described based on a quantum theoretic model. These decision and cognitive theoretic formulations that use the mathematical toolbox of quantum theory (i.e., quantum probabilities) are referred to by researchers as quantum-like modeling approaches. Based on the general structure of a quantum-like computational trust model, in this paper, we demonstrate that a quantum-like model of trust can define a powerful and flexible trust evolution (i.e., updating) mechanism. After the introduction of the general scheme of the proposed model, the main focus of the paper would be on the proposition of an amplitude amplification-based approach to trust evolution. By performing four different experimental evaluations, it is shown that the proposed trust evolution algorithm inspired by the Grover’s quantum search algorithm is an effective and accurate mechanism for trust updating compared to other commonly used classical approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. \(\left| {\left. \psi \right\rangle } \right.\) is the conjugate transpose of column vector \(\left| {\left. \psi \right\rangle } \right.\).

  2. The Hamiltonian is the sum of the kinetic energies of all the particles, plus the potential energy of the particles associated with the system (Eisberg et al. 1986).

  3. Heisenberg first introduced the uncertainty principle for the position and momentum of an electron by stating that “one can never know with perfect accuracy both of those two important factors which determine the movement of one of the smallest particles—“its position and its velocity” (Yanofsky and Mannucci 2008).

  4. The evolution of trust through time without the reception of new evidence or any external event happening.

  5. The interpretation of this behavior in physical systems is the loss of the energy of the system through time.

  6. General terms such as good or bad is used for the sake of simplicity. For example, the general term of goodness can be interpreted in the context of trust with the help of internal and external factors such as being competent, willing, motivated, and so on.

  7. It is worth mentioning that this copying does not invalidate the no-cloning theorem since the state \(\left| {TT{C^t}} \right.\) is a certain known state at each step of the algorithm.

References

  • Aerts D (2009) Quantum structure in cognition. J Math Psychol 53:314–348

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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 conference, Aberdeen, UK, June, 26–29, 2011. Springer, Berlin, pp 192–198

  • Ahmed S, Al-Rubeaai S, Tepe K (2017) Novel trust framework for vehicular networks. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 66(10):9498–9511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali AS, Rana OF (2010) A belief-based trust model for dynamic service selection. In: Neumann D, Baker M, Altmann J, Rana OF (eds) Economic models and algorithms for distributed systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 9–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson NH, Hubert S (1963) Effects of concomitant verbal recall on order effects in personality impression formation. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 2:379–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade-Garda J, Anguera Á, Ares-Casal J et al (2018) A metrology-based approach for measuring the social dimension of cognitive trust in collaborative networks. Cogn Technol Work. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0483-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Artz D, Gil Y (2007) A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. Web Semantics Sci Serv Agents World Wide Web 5:58–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashtiani M, Abdollahi Azgomi M (2016) A formulation of computational trust based on quantum decision theory. Inf Syst Front 18:735–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashtiani M, Azgomi MA (2015) A multi-criteria decision-making formulation of trust using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Cogn Technol Work 17(4):465–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashtiani M, Abdollahi M, Azgomi (2014) Contextuality, incompatibility and biased inference in a quantum-like formulation of computational trust. Adv Complex Syst 17(5):1450020

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barber KS, Kim J (2001) Belief revision process based on trust: agents evaluating reputation of information sources. In: Proceedings of the trust in cyber-societies, 2011. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–82

  • Bouwmeester D, Pan JW, Mattle K, Eibl M, Weinfurter H, Zeilinger A (1997) Experimental quantum teleportation. Nature 390:575–579

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brassard G, Høyer P, Tapp A (1998) Quantum counting. In: Proceedings of the automata, languages and programming, Aalborg, Denmark, July 13–17, 1998. Springer, Berlin, pp 820–831

  • Brassard G, Hoyer P, Mosca M, Tapp A (2000) Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:quant-ph/0005055

  • Buchegger S, Le Boudec JY (2003) Coping with false accusations in misbehavior reputation systems for mobile ad-hoc networks. Technical Report, Infoscience, EPFL Scientific Publishing. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/467?ln=en

  • Busacca B, Castaldo S (2011) Trust in market relationships: an interpretative model. Sinergie Rivista di Studi e Ricerche 58:191–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer JR, Bruza PD (2012) Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer JR, Franco R, Pothos EM (2009) Quantum probability explanations for probability judgment errors. arXiv preprint arXiv:0909.2789

  • Carbo J, Molina JM, Davila J (2003) Trust management through fuzzy reputation. Int J Cooper Inf Syst 12:135–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 2000, Hawaii, Hawaii, US, Jan 7, 2000, p 10

  • Das A, Islam MM (2012) Securedtrust: a dynamic trust computation model for secured communication in multiagent systems. IEEE Trans Dependable Secure Comput 9:261–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong D, Chen C, Chen Z (2005) Quantum reinforcement learning. In: Proceedings of the advances in natural computation, Changsha, China, August 27–29, 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 686–689

  • Dong D, Chen C, Zhang C, Chen Z (2006) Quantum robot: structure, algorithms and applications. Robotica 24:513–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong D, Chen C, Li H, Tarn TJ (2008) Quantum reinforcement learning. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 38:1207–1220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuBois T, Golbeck J, Srinivasan A (2011) Predicting trust and distrust in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 3rd international conference on and 2011 IEEE 3rd international conference on social computing (socialcom), privacy, security, risk and trust (PASSAT), Boston, US, October 9–11, 2011, pp 418–424

  • Eisberg R, Resnick R, Brown J (1986) Quantum physics of atoms, molecules, solids, nuclei, and particles. Phys Today 39:110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng L, Huizhong W (2008) Research of trust valuation based on cloud model. Eng Sci 10:84–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco R (2009) Quantum amplitude amplification algorithm: an explanation of availability bias. In: Proceedings of the quantum interaction conference, Saarbruecken, Germany, March 25–27, 2009. Springer, Berlin, pp 84–96

  • Grandison T, Sloman M (2000) A survey of trust in internet applications. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 3:2–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover LK (2013) A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, Coimbra, Portugal, March 18–22, 2013, pp 212–219

  • Guo J, Ma J, Li X, Zhang T, Liu Z (2017) A situational awareness trust evolution model for mobile devices in D2D communication. IEEE Access 6:4375–4386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hang CW, Wang Y, Singh MP (2008) An adaptive probabilistic trust model and its evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 3, Estoril, Portugal, May 12–16, 2008, pp 1485–1488

  • Heisenberg W (1949) The physical principles of the quantum theory. Courier Dover Publications, Mineola

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogendoorn M, Jaffry SW, Treur J (2008) Modeling dynamics of relative trust of competitive information agents. In: Proceedings of the cooperative information agents XII, Prague, Czech, Sept 10–12, 2008. Springer, Berlin, pp 55–70

  • Hoogendoorn M, Jaffry SW, Treur J (2010) Incorporating interdependency of trust values in existing trust models for trust dynamics. In: Proceedings of the trust management IV, Morioka, Japan, June, 16–18, 2010. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–276

  • Hoogendoorn M, Jaffry SW, van Maanen PP, Treur J (2011a) 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, August 22–27, 2011, pp 256–263

  • Hoogendoorn M, Jaffry SW, van Maanen PP (2011b) Validation and verification of agent models for trust: independent compared to relative trust. In: Proceedings of the trust management V, Copenhagen, Denmark, 29 June–1 July, 2011. Springer, Berlin, pp 35–50

  • Huang H, Wang R (2008) Subjective trust evaluation model based on membership cloud theory. J Commun 29:13–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Jøsang A, Ismail R, Boyd C (2007) A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis Support Syst 43:618–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz Y, Golbeck J (2006) Social network-based trust in prioritized default logic. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference, Boston, US, July 16–20, 2006, pp 1345–1350

  • Klüwer JW, Waaler A (2006) Trustworthiness by default. In: Proceedings of the computational logic in multi-agent systems, Hakodate, Japan, May 8–9, 2006. Springer, Berlin, pp 96–111

  • Lesani M, Bagheri S (2006) Applying and inferring fuzzy trust in semantic web social networks. In: Proceedings of the Canadian semantic web, 2006. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–43

  • Lewicki RJ, McAllister DJ, Bies RJ (1998) Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Acad Manag Rev 23:438–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh S, Dibben MR (2005) Trust, untrust, distrust, and mistrust—an exploration of the dark (er) side. In: Proceedings of the trust management conference, Paris, France, May 23–26, 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–33

  • Melaye D, Demazeau Y (2005) Bayesian dynamic trust model. In: Proceedings of the multi-agent systems and applications IV, Budapest, Hungary, September 15–17, 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 480–489

  • Möllering G (2001) The nature of trust: from Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation, and suspension. Sociology 35:403–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos EM, Busemeyer JR (2009) A quantum probability explanation for violations of rational decision theory. R Soc B Biol Sci 276:2171–2178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan K, Poupart P, Cohen R (2006) Bayesian reputation modeling in e-marketplaces sensitive to subjectivity, deception, and change. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, 2006, Boston, US, p 1206

  • Shi J, Bochmann Gv, Adams C (2005) A trust model with statistical foundation. In: Proceedings of the formal aspects in security and trust, Tyne, UK, July 18–19, 2005, vol 173, pp 145–158

  • Trueblood JS, Busemeyer JR (2011) A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cogn Sci 35:1518–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Gati I (1982) Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. Psychol Rev 89:123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Acker BB, Parmentier DD, Vlerick P et al (2018) Understanding mental workload: from a clarifying concept analysis toward an implementable framework. Cogn Technol Work. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0481-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbiest N, Cornelis C, Victor P, Herrera-Viedma E (2012) Trust and distrust aggregation enhanced with path length incorporation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 202:61–74

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yanofsky NS, Mannucci MA (2008) Quantum computing for computer scientists, vol 20. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yao Y, Tong H, Yan X, Xu F, Lu J (2013) Multi-aspect + transitivity + bias: an integral trust inference model. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 90:1706–1719

    Google Scholar 

  • Youssef M, Abdeslam EN, Mohamed D (2017) Towards a framework for the analysis and evaluation of computational trust models in multi-agent systems. J Softw 12(11):892–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuviler-Gavish N, Naseraldin H (2016) The effect of previous experience when introducing a decision aid in a decision support system for supply chain management. Cogn Technol Work 18(2):439–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Trustworthy Computing Laboratory, School of Computer Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Hengam St., Resalat Sq., Tehran, 16846-13114, Iran

    Mehrdad Ashtiani & Mohammad Abdollahi Azgomi

Authors
  1. Mehrdad Ashtiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Abdollahi Azgomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Abdollahi Azgomi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ashtiani, M., Abdollahi Azgomi, M. A novel trust evolution algorithm based on a quantum-like model of computational trust. Cogn Tech Work 21, 201–224 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0496-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0496-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation