Trust and Reputation of Web Services Through QoS Correlation Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In modern distributed systems, service consumers are faced with pools of service providers that offer similar functionalities. This reality renders the selection of web services a challenging task. One popular solution is to base the selection decisions on the web services’ non-functional requirements depicted by a variety of QoS metrics. In this paper, we present a new approach for solving the web service selection problem; a QoS-aware trust model that leverages the correlation information among various QoS metrics. This model, based on the probability theory, estimates the trustworthiness of web services by exploiting two statistical distributions, namely, Dirichlet and generalized Dirichlet. These distributions represent the outcomes of multiple correlated QoS metrics. The former distribution is employed when the QoS metrics are positively correlated while the latter handles negatively correlated metrics. We also propose an algorithm to aggregate reputation feedback that propagate among the interacting web services. This algorithm deals with malicious feedback and various strategic behavior commonly performed by web services. Experimental results endorse the advantageous capability of our trust model and reputation algorithm compared to the state-of-the-art.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".