MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977930421 · doi:10.1109/tpds.2013.37

Enabling Trustworthy Service Evaluation in Service-Oriented Mobile Social Networks

2014· article· en· W1977930421 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceService providerComputer securityService (business)Sybil attackTrusted ComputingComputer networkInternet privacyWorld Wide WebWireless sensor networkBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a Trustworthy Service Evaluation (TSE) system to enable users to share service reviews in service-oriented mobile social networks (S-MSNs). Each service provider independently maintains a TSE for itself, which collects and stores users' reviews about its services without requiring any third trusted authority. The service reviews can then be made available to interested users in making wise service selection decisions. We identify three unique service review attacks, i.e., linkability, rejection, and modification attacks, and develop sophisticated security mechanisms for the TSE to deal with these attacks. Specifically, the basic TSE (bTSE) enables users to distributedly and cooperatively submit their reviews in an integrated chain form by using hierarchical and aggregate signature techniques. It restricts the service providers to reject, modify, or delete the reviews. Thus, the integrity and authenticity of reviews are improved. Further, we extend the bTSE to a Sybil-resisted TSE (SrTSE) to enable the detection of two typical sybil attacks. In the SrTSE, if a user generates multiple reviews toward a vendor in a predefined time slot with different pseudonyms, the real identity of that user will be revealed. Through security analysis and numerical results, we show that the bTSE and the SrTSE effectively resist the service review attacks and the SrTSE additionally detects the sybil attacks in an efficient manner. Through performance evaluation, we show that the bTSE achieves better performance in terms of submission rate and delay than a service review system that does not adopt user cooperation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it