Enabling Trustworthy Service Evaluation in Service-Oriented Mobile Social Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".