Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trust consistency in public data games on complex networks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The trust on network of Chinese public database is involved many factors in sociology, economics, technology, social psychology and so on, which resulted in the complexity of trust mechanism. The construction of trust mechanism plays a decisive role in public data governance via theoretical analysis. In the view of system science, trust is the key feedback control variable of data exchanging in the information structure and function of social economic system, while the emergence variable, not individual variable. In other words, the trust is unexpressed individually or locally, missed the principle of reductionism and belonging to the category of systems. The evolution of the structure and function of the trust in the public data trust game is a typical complex system dynamics process. By systematic approach, this research provides an overall framework for trust mechanisms in the Chinese public database network to reach trust consistency, thereby, improving the quality of Chinese public data products and the credibility of data authority in public sector. The problem of control is studied which betrayal is restricted to limit size of belief, in the viewpoints of public sector bureaucratic behavior, the data trust game and the trust psychological mechanism. One of proposed Byzantine general algorithm is provide for public data game with the "cheap talk", and the trust dynamics equations is set up on the trust overlay network of hierarchical public data game, while the economic and sociological explains of the model conditions and model solving are presented for us to understand this algorithm and model.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable—the authors declare that their manuscript has no associated data.

References

  1. Lee YW et al (2009) Journey to data quality. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Soares S (2012) Big data governance: an emerging imperative. MC Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Liu WQ (2016) Public data evolution games on complex networks and data quality control. Sci Sin Inform 46(11):1569–1590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Luo J-D, Shuai M, Yang KH (2017) A sociological analysis of trust in government when ‘the center is strong and local government weak’: based on third-stage tracking data following the Wenchuan earthquake. Soc Sci China 2:84–100

    Google Scholar 

  5. King-Casas B et al (2005) Getting to know you: reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science 308(5718):78–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wardle MC et al (2013) The caudate signals bad reputation during trust decisions. PLoS ONE 8(6):e68884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Phan KL et al (2010) Reputation for reciprocity engages the brain reward center. PNAS 107(29):13099–13104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stanley DA et al (2012) Race and reputation: perceived racial group trustworthiness influences the neural correlates of trust decisions. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 367(1589):744–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu WQ (2014) Modeling data quality control system of Chinese public database and its empirical analysis. Sci Sin Inform 44(7):836–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Leslie L, Robert S, Marshall P (1982) The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Trans Progr Lang Syst 4(3):382–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marshall P, Robert S, Leslie L (1980) Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. J ACM 27(2):228–234

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen XP, Pillutla MM, Yao X (2009) Unintended consequences of cooperation inducing and maintaining mechanisms in public goods dilemmas: sanctions and moral appeals. Group Process Intergr Relat 12(2):241–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Attanasi G, Battigalli P, Manzoni E (2016) Incomplete-information models of guilt aversion in the trust game. Manag Sci 62(3):648–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhou RF, Hwang K (2007) PowerTrust: a robust and scalable reputation system for trust peer-to-peer computing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 18(4):460–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fernandez-Gago C, Moyano F, Lopez J (2017) Modelling trust dynamics in the internet of things. Inf Sci 396:72–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Özer Ö, Zheng YC, Chen K-Y (2011) Trust in forecast information sharing. Manag Sci 57(6):1111–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Anbarci N, Ghosh SP, Roy J (2017) Information control in reputational cheap talk. Games Econ Behav 106:153–160

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Li ZZ, Rantakari H, Yang HX (2016) Competitive cheap talk. Games Econ Behav 96:65–89

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Kellner C, Le Quement MT (2018) Endogenous ambiguity in cheap talk. J Econ Theory 173:1–17

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Shao MW, Li KW (2017) Attribute reduction in generalized one-sided formal contexts. Inf Sci 378:317–327

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Shao MW, Leung Y, Wu WZ (2014) Rule acquisition and complexity reduction in formal decision contexts. Int J Approx Reason 55(1):259–274

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang L, Tian Y, Du JM (2018) Opinion dynamics in social networks. Sci Sin Inform 48(1):3–23

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. DeGroot MH (1974) Reaching a consensus. J Am Stat Assoc 69(345):118–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC (1999) Social influence networks and opinion change. Adv Group Process 16:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hegselmann R, Krause U (2002) Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 5(3):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lin ZT, Dong L (2018) Clarifying trust in social internet of things. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 30(2):234–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhong YH et al (2015) A computational dynamic trust model for user authorization. IEEE Trans Dependable Secure Comput 12(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Guo L (2016) What is systematology. J Syst Sci Math Sci 36(3):291–301

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Xu WH, Li WT (2017) Granular computing approach to two-way learning based on formal concept analysis in fuzzy datasets. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(2):366–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kong QZ et al (2020) Attribute reducts of multi-granulation information system. Artif Intell Rev 53(2):1353–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Systems Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 650500, People’s Republic of China

    Meng Li & Zengru Di

  2. Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, Yunnan, 650500, People’s Republic of China

    Wenqi Liu

Authors
  1. Meng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zengru Di
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wenqi Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenqi Liu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, M., Di, Z. & Liu, W. Trust consistency in public data games on complex networks. Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. 12, 2917–2932 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-021-01378-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-021-01378-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation