The popularity and broad accessibility of online social networks (OSNs) have facilitated effective communication among people, but such networks also pose potential risks that should not be ignored. Interaction through OSNs is complex and can be unsafe, as individuals can be contacted by strangers at any time. This makes the notion of trust a crucial issue in the use of OSNs. However, compared with decision-making processes associated with whether to trust a stranger encountered in everyday life, this task is more difficult to address with regard to OSNs due to the lack of face-to-face communication and prior knowledge between people. In this article, trust evaluation is formalised as a classification problem. We demonstrate how user profiles and historical records can be organised into a logical structure based on Bayesian networks to recognise the trustworthy people without the need to build trust relationships in OSNs. This is possible when a more detailed description of features denoted by hidden variables is considered. We compare the performance of our method with those of six other machine learning methods using Facebook and Twitter datasets, and our results show that our method achieves higher values in accuracy, recall and F1 score.
JiangWWangGBhuiyanMZA, et al. Understanding graph-based trust evaluation in online social networks: methodologies and challenges. ACM Comput Surv2016; 49(1): 1–35.
2.
SherchanWNepalSParisC. A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Comput Surv2013; 45(4): 1–33.
3.
HaythornthwaiteC. Social networks and internet connectivity effects. Inform Commun Soc2005; 8(2): 125–147.
4.
JaegerPTShneidermanBFleischmannKR, et al. Community response grids: E-government, social networks, and effective emergency management. Telecommun Policy2007; 31(10–11): 592–604.
5.
ZappenJPHarrisonTMWatsonD. A new paradigm for designing E-government: web 2.0 and experience design. In: Proceedings of the international conference on digital government research, Montreal, QC, Canada, 18–21 May 2008, pp. 17–26. Los Angeles, CA: Digital Government Society of North America.
6.
MlleringG. The nature of trust: from Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology2001; 35(2): 403–420.
7.
CookKSYamagishiTCheshireC, et al. Trust building via risk taking: a cross-societal experiment. Soc Psychol Quart2005; 68(2): 121–142.
8.
HuangF. Building social trust: a human-capital approach. J Inst Theor Econ2007; 163(4): 552–573.
9.
HughesDCoulsonGWalkerdineJ. Free riding on gnutella revisited: the bell tolls?IEEE Distrib Sys Online2005; 6(6): 1–1.
10.
MaheswaranMTangHCGhunaimA. Towards a gravity-based trust model for social networking systems. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on distributed computing systems workshops (ICDCSW’07), Toronto, ON, Canada, 22–29 June 2007, p. 24. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
11.
ChenSWangGJiaW. K-FuzzyTrust: efficient trust computation for large-scale mobile social networks using a fuzzy implicit social graph. Inform Sciences2015; 318: 123–143.
12.
LiuGYangQWangH, et al. Assessment of multi-hop interpersonal trust in social networks by three-valued subjective logic. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2014 – IEEE conference on computer communications, Toronto, ON, Canada, 27 April–2 May 2014, pp. 1698–1706. New York: IEEE.
13.
WangGWuJ. FlowTrust: trust inference with network flows. Front Comput Sci Chi2011; 5(2): 181–194.
14.
SatyaPRBLeeKLeeD, et al. Uncovering fake likers in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM’16), Indianapolis, IN, 24–28 October 2016, pp. 2365–2370. New York, NY: ACM.
15.
ChenCZhangJChenX, et al. 6 million spam tweets: a large ground truth for timely twitter spam detection. In: IEEE international conference on communications, London, 8–12 June 2015, pp. 7065–7070. New York: IEEE.
16.
KamarudinMHMapleCWatsonT, et al. A LogitBoost-based algorithm for detecting known and unknown web attacks. IEEE Access2017; 5: 26190–26200.
17.
HerzallahWFarisHAdwanO. Feature engineering for detecting spammers on twitter: modelling and analysis. J Inf Sci2018; 44(2): 230–247.
18.
AmorNBBenferhatSElouediZ.Naive Bayes vs decision trees in intrusion detection systems. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on applied computing, Nicosia, Cyprus, 14-17 March 2004, pp. 420–424. New York: ACM.
19.
ChenTGuestrinC.XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD ’16), San Francisco, CA, 13–17 August 2016, pp. 785–794. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
20.
Al-KabiMWahshehHAlsmadiI, et al. Content-based analysis to detect Arabic web spam. J Inf Sci2012; 38(3): 284–296.
21.
GolbeckJA. Computing and applying trust in web-based social networks. PhD Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2005.
22.
AvesaniPMassaPTiellaR.A trust-enhanced recommender system application: moleskiing. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied computing, Santa Fe, NM, 13–17 March 2005, pp. 1589–1593. New York: ACM.
23.
JiangWWangG. SWTrust: generating trusted graph for trust evaluation in online social networks. In: IEEE 10th international conference on trust, security and privacy in computing and communications (TrustCom), Changsha, China, 16–18 November 2011, pp. 320–327. New York: IEEE.
24.
JiangWWangGWuJ. Generating trusted graphs for trust evaluation in online social networks. Future Gener Comp Sy2014; 31: 48–58.
25.
ZieglerCNLausenG. Propagation models for trust and distrust in social networks. Inform Syst Front2005; 7(4–5): 337–358.
26.
TaherianMAminiMJaliliR.Trust inference in web-based social networks using resistive networks. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on internet and web applications and services (ICIW’08), Athens, 8–13 June 2008, pp. 233–238. New York: IEEE.
27.
JiangWWuJLiF, et al. Trust evaluation in online social networks using generalized network flow. IEEE T Comput2016; 65(3): 952–963.
28.
LiuGWangYOrgunM.Trust inference in complex trust-oriented social networks. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computational science and engineering (CSE’09), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 29–31 August 2009, vol. 4, pp. 996–1001. New York: IEEE.
29.
LiuGWangYOrgunM. Optimal social trust path selection in complex social networks. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fourth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), Atlanta, GA, 11–15 July 2010, pp. 1575–1576. New York: ACM.
30.
DemolombeR. Reasoning about trust: a formal logical framework. In: JensenCPosladSDimitrakosT (eds) Trust management. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2004, pp. 291–303.
31.
AhmedMMahmoodANHuJ. A survey of network anomaly detection techniques. J Netw Comput Appl2016; 60: 19–31.
ChickeringDMHeckermanD. Efficient approximations for the marginal likelihood of incomplete data given a Bayesian network. Mach Learn2013; 29(2–3): 158–168.
35.
FriedmanN. Learning belief networks in the presence of missing values and hidden variables. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on machine learning (ICML ’97), Nashville, TN, 08–12 July 1997, pp. 125–133. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
36.
BinderJKollerDRussellS, et al. Adaptive probabilistic networks with hidden variables. Mach Learn1997; 29(2–3): 213–244.
37.
HueteJCamposLFernandez-LunaJ. Using structural content information for learning user profiles. In: Proceedings of the 30th special interest group on information retrieval, Amsterdam, 23–27 July 2007, pp. 38–45. New York, NY: ACM
38.
ZiglerCM. The central role of Bayes’ theorem for joint estimation of causal effects and propensity scores. Am Stat2016; 70(1): 47–54.
39.
KusharyD. The EM algorithm and extensions. Technometrics1997; 40(3): 260–260.
40.
DempsterAPLairdNMRubinDB. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc1977; 39(1): 1–38.
41.
MurphyKP. A variational approximation for Bayesian networks with discrete and continuous latent variables. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Stockholm, 30 July–1 August 1999, pp. 457–466. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
42.
LernerUSegalEKollerD. Exact inference in networks with discrete children of continuous parents. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Seattle, WA, 2–5 August 2001, pp. 319–328. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
43.
FayyadUIraniK. Multi-interval discretization of continuous-valued attributes for classification learning. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI, Chambery, France, 28 August–03 September 1993, pp. 1022–1027. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
44.
BleiDMKucukelbirAMcAuliffeJD. Variational inference: a review for statisticians. J Am Stat Assoc2017; 112(518): 859–877.
45.
McGeachieMJChangHHWeissST. CGBayesNets: conditional Gaussian Bayesian network learning and inference with mixed discrete and continuous data. PLoS Comput Biol2014; 10(6): e1003676.
46.
MoriJMahalecV. Inference in hybrid Bayesian networks with large discrete and continuous domains. Expert Syst Appl2016; 49: 1–19.
47.
OniśkoADruzdzelMJWasylukH. Learning Bayesian network parameters from small data sets: application of Noisy-OR gates. Int J Approx Reason2001; 27(2): 165–182.
48.
FallahnezhadMBabadiAY. A new acceptance sampling plan using Bayesian approach in the presence of inspection errors. T I Meas Control2015; 37(9): 1060–1073.
