skip to main content
research-article

A Reputation-based Framework for Honest Provenance Reporting

Published:14 November 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Given the distributed, heterogenous, and dynamic nature of service-based IoT systems, capturing circumstances data underlying service provisions becomes increasingly important for understanding process flow and tracing how outputs came about, thus enabling clients to make more informed decisions regarding future interaction partners. Whilst service providers are the main source of such circumstances data, they may often be reluctant to release it, e.g., due to the cost and effort required, or to protect their interests. In response, this article introduces a reputation-based framework, guided by intelligent software agents, to support the sharing of truthful circumstances information by providers. In this framework, assessor agents, acting on behalf of clients, rank and select service providers according to reputation, while provider agents, acting on behalf of service providers, learn from the environment and adjust provider’s circumstances provision policies in the direction that increases provider profit with respect to perceived reputation. The novelty of the reputation assessment model adopted by assessor agents lies in affecting provider reputation scores by whether or not they reveal truthful circumstances data underlying their service provisions, in addition to other factors commonly adopted by existing reputation schemes. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is demonstrated through an agent-based simulation including robustness against a number of attacks, with a comparative performance analysis against FIRE as a baseline reputation model.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Atzori Luigi, Iera Antonio, and Morabito Giacomo. 2010. The internet of things: A survey. Computer Networks 54, 15 (Oct. 2010), 27872805.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Barakat L., Taylor P., Griffiths N., and Miles S.. 2017. Corroboration via provenance patterns. In Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance. USENIX Association.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Ben Abderrahim Oumaima, Elhdhili Mohamed Houcine, and Saidane Leila. 2017. TMCoI-SIOT: A trust management system based on communities of interest for the social internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2017 13th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference. 747752.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Ben Abderrahim Oumaima, Elhedhili Mohamed Houcine, and Saidane Leila. 2017. CTMS-SIOT: A context-based trust management system for the social internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2017 13th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference. 19031908.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Saied Yosra Ben, Olivereau Alexis, Zeghlache Djamal, and Laurent Maryline. 2013. Trust management system design for the internet of things: A context-aware and multi-service approach. Computers & Security 39, B (2013), 351365. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Blocki Jeremiah, Christin Nicolas, Datta Anupam, Procaccia Ariel D., and Sinha Arunesh. 2013. Audit games. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 4147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [7] Bowling M. and Veloso M.. 2001. Rational and convergent learning in stochastic games. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 10211026.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. [8] Burnett Chris, Norman Timothy, and Sycara Katia. 2013. Stereotypical trust and bias in dynamic multiagent systems. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 4, 2 (2013), 26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [9] Chen IngRay, Guo Jia, and Bao Fenye. 2016. Trust management for SOA-Based IoT and its application to service composition. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 9, 3 (2016), 482495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Chen Juan, Tian Zhihong, Cui Xiang, Yin Lihua, and Wang Xianzhi. 2019. Trust architecture and reputation evaluation for internet of things. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 10, 8 (2019), 30993107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Ciortea Andrei, Mayer Simon, Gandon Fabien, Boissier Olivier, Ricci Alessandro, and Zimmermann Antoine. 2019. A decade in hindsight: The missing bridge between multi-agent systems and the world wide web. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Clark P. B. and Wilson J. Q.. 1961. Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 6, 2 (1961), 129166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Fortino Giancarlo, Fotia Lidia, Messina Fabrizio, Rosaci Domenico, and Sarné Giuseppe M. L.. 2020. Trust and reputation in the internet of things: State-of-the-art and research challenges. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 6011760125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Gambetta D.. 2000. Can we trust trust? Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations13, (2000), 213–237.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Gneezy U., Meier S., and Rey-Biel P.. 2011. When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives 25, 4 (2011), 191210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Griffiths N. and Chao K.-M. (Eds.). 2010. Agent-Based Service-Oriented Computing. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Griffiths Nathan and Miles Simon. 2013. An architecture for justified assessments of service provider reputation. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering. 345352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Guinard Dominique, Trifa Vlad, Karnouskos Stamatis, Spiess Patrik, and Savio Domnic. 2010. Interacting with the SOA-based internet of things: Discovery, query, selection, and on-demand provisioning of web services. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 3, 3 (2010), 223235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Guo Jia, Chen Ing-Ray, and Tsai Jeffrey J. P.. 2017. A survey of trust computation models for service management in internet of things systems. Computer Communications. 97, C (2017), 114. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. [20] Heitz M., König S., and Eymann T.. 2010. Reputation in multi agent systems and the incentives to provide feedback. In Proceedings of the Multiagent System Technologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6251. 4051.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Helbing D., Szolnoki A., Perc M., and Szab G.. 2010. Punish, but not too hard: How costly punishment spreads in the spatial public goods game. New Journal of Physics 12, 8 (2010), 083005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Hoffman Kevin, Zage David, and Nita-Rotaru Cristina. 2009. A survey of attack and defense techniques for reputation systems. ACM Computing Surveys 42, 1 (2009), 131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Huynh Trung Dong, Jennings Nicholas R., and Shadbolt Nigel R.. 2006. An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 13, 2 (2006), 119154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Issarny Valérie, Bouloukakis Georgios, Georgantas Nikolaos, and Billet Benjamin. 2016. Revisiting service-oriented architecture for the IoT: A middleware perspective. In Proceedings of the Service-Oriented Computing, Sheng Quan Z., Stroulia Eleni, Tata Samir, and Bhiri Sam (Eds.). 317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. [25] Jøsang A. and Ismail R.. 2002. The beta reputation system. In Proceedings of the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Jøsang A., Ismail R., and Boyd C.. 2007. A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems 43, 2 (2007), 618644.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. [27] Kerr R. and Cohen R.. 2009. Smart cheaters do prosper: Defeating trust and reputation systems. In Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 9931000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Kheirbek Ammar and Chiaramella Yves. 1995. Integrating hypermedia and information retrieval with conceptual graphs formalism. In Proceedings of the Hypertext - Information Retrieval - Multimedia: Synergieeffekte elektronischer Informationssysteme. 4760.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Liu Y., Zhang J., An B., and Sen S.. 2016. A simulation framework for measuring robustness of incentive mechanisms and its implementation in reputation systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 30, 4 (2016), 581600.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Mahmoud S., Keppens J., Griffiths N., and Luck M.. 2012. Efficient norm emergence through experiential dynamic punishment. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IOS Press, 576581.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] Malik Z. and Bouguettaya A.. 2009. RATEWeb: Reputation assessment for trust establishment among web services. The VLDB Journal 18, 4 (2009), 885911.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Maximilien E. M. and Singh M. P.. 2005. Agent-based trust model involving multiple qualities. In Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 519526.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Miles Simon and Griffiths Nathan. 2015. Incorporating mitigating circumstances into reputation assessment. In Proceedings of the Advances in Social Computing and Multiagent Systems - 6th International Workshop on Collaborative Agents Research and Development, CARE 2015 and Second International Workshop on Multiagent Foundations of Social Computing. 7793.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Moreau Luc. 2010. The foundations for provenance on the web. Foundations and Trends in Web Science 2, 2–3 (Nov. 2010), 99241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Moreau Luc, Clifford Ben, Freire Juliana, Futrelle Joe, Gil Yolanda, Groth Paul, Kwasnikowska Natalia, Miles Simon, Missier Paolo, Myers Jim, Plale Beth, Simmhan Yogesh, Stephan Eric, and Bussche Jan Van den. 2011. The open provenance model core specification (v1.1). Future Generation Computer Systems 27, 6 (June 2011), 743756.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Moreau Luc, Groth Paul, Cheney James, Lebo Tim, and Miles Simon. 2015. The rationale of PROV. Journal of Web Semantics 35, (2015), 235–257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. [37] Namal Suneth, Gamaarachchi Hasindu, MyoungLee Gyu, and Um Tai-Won. 2015. Autonomic trust management in cloud-based and highly dynamic IoT applications. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITU Kaleidoscope: Trust in the Information Society. 18. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Nikiforakis N.. 2008. Punishment and counter-punishment in public good games: Can we really govern ourselves? Journal of Public Economics 92, 1–2 (2008), 91112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [39] Nitti Michele, Girau Roberto, and Atzori Luigi. 2014. Trustworthiness management in the social internet of things. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 26, 5 (2014), 12531266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [40] Nitti Michele, Girau Roberto, Atzori Luigi, Iera Antonio, and Morabito Giacomo. 2012. A subjective model for trustworthiness evaluation in the social internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications. 1823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Papaioannou G. T. and Stamoulis D. G.. 2010. A mechanism that provides incentives for truthful feedback in peer-to-peer systems. Electronic Commerce Research 10, 3 (2010), 331362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Pinyol I. and Sabater-Mir J.. 2013. Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review 40, 1 (2013), 125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Regan Kevin, Poupart Pascal, and Cohen Robin. 2006. Bayesian reputation modeling in e-marketplaces sensitive to subjecthity, deception and change. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 12061212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. [44] Rodrigues M. and Luck M.. 2007. Cooperative interactions: An exchange values model. In Proceedings of the Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4386. 356371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. [45] Sabater Jordi. 2004. Evaluating the ReGreT system. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18, 9–10 (2004), 797813.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Sabater Jordi and Sierra Carles. 2005. Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artificial Intelligence Review 24, 1 (2005), 3360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Sabater-Mir Jordi and Sierra Carles. 2001. REGRET: A reputation model in gregarious societies. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies. 6169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] Savarimuthu B. T. R., Purvis M., Purvis M., and Cranefield S.. 2009. Social norm emergence in virtual agent societies. In Proceedings of the Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies VILecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5397. 1828.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. [49] Sensoy Murat, Yilmaz Burcu, and Norman Timothy J.. 2016. Stage: Stereotypical trust assessment through graph extraction. Computational Intelligence 32, 1 (2016), 72101. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. [50] Shnayder Victor, Agarwal Arpit, Frongillo Rafael, and Parkes David C.. 2016. Informed truthfulness in multi-task peer prediction. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, New York, NY, 179196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] Simmhan Y., Plale B., and Gannon D.. 2005. A survey of data provenance in e-science. SIGMOD Record 34, 3 (2005), 3136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Singh Dhananjay, Tripathi Gaurav, and Jara Antonio J.. 2014. A survey of internet-of-things: Future vision, architecture, challenges and services. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things. 287292. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. [53] Teacy W. T. Luke, Luck Michael, Rogers Alex, and Jennings Nicholas R.. 2012. An efficient and versatile approach to trust and reputation using hierarchical bayesian modelling. Artificial Intelligence 193 (2012), 149185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. [54] Teacy W. T. L., Patel J., Jennings N. R., and Luck M.. 2005. Coping with inaccurate reputation sources: Experimental analysis of a probabilistic trust model. In Procedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 9971004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. [55] Teixeira Thiago, Hachem Sara, Issarny Valérie, and Georgantas Nikolaos. 2011. Service oriented middleware for the internet of things: A perspective. In Proceedings of the Towards a Service-Based Internet, Abramowicz Witold, Llorente Ignacio M., Surridge Mike, Zisman Andrea, and Vayssière Julien (Eds.). 220229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. [56] Villatoro D., Andrighetto G., Sabater-Mir J., and Conte R.. 2011. Dynamic sanctioning for robust and cost-efficient norm compliance. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. [57] W3C. 2013. PROV Model Primer. Retrieved January 2021 from http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. [58] Wang Y. and Singh M. P.. 2007. Formal trust model for multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 15511556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. [59] Whitby Andrew, Jøsang Audun, and Indulska Jadwiga. 2004. Filtering out unfair ratings in bayesian reputation systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies, Vol. 6. 106117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Witkowski J., Seuken S., and Parkes D. C.. 2011. Incentive-compatible escrow mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 25th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 751757.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. [61] Xu Z., Martin P., Powley W., and Zulkernine F.. 2007. Reputation-enhanced QoS-based web services discovery. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Web Services. 249256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. [62] Zhang J., Cohen R., and Larson K.. 2012. Combining trust modeling and mechanism design for promoting honesty in e-marketplaces. Computational Intelligence 28, 4 (2012), 549578.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Reputation-based Framework for Honest Provenance Reporting

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
        ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 22, Issue 4
        November 2022
        642 pages
        ISSN:1533-5399
        EISSN:1557-6051
        DOI:10.1145/3561988
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 November 2022
        • Online AM: 3 February 2022
        • Accepted: 20 December 2021
        • Revised: 10 December 2021
        • Received: 30 April 2021
        Published in toit Volume 22, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Refereed
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)73
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!