An Adaptive and Intelligent SLA Negotiation System for Web Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effective use of services to compose business processes in services computing demands that the Quality of Services (QoS) meet consumers' expectations. Automated web-based negotiation of Service Level Agreements (SLA) can help define the QoS requirements of critical service-based processes. We propose a novel trusted Negotiation Broker (NB) framework that performs adaptive and intelligent bilateral bargaining of SLAs between a service provider and a service consumer based on each party's high-level business requirements. We define mathematical models to map business-level requirements to low-level parameters of the decision function, which obscures the complexity of the system from the parties. We also define an algorithm for adapting the decision functions during an ongoing negotiation to comply with an opponent's offers or with updated consumer preferences. The NB uses intelligent agents to conduct the negotiation locally by selecting the most appropriate time-based decision functions. The negotiation outcomes are validated by extensive experimental study for Exponential, Polynomial, and Sigmoid time-based decision functions using simulations on our prototype framework. Results are compared in terms of a total utility value of the negotiating parties to demonstrate the efficiency of our proposed approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".