Game Theoretical Analysis on Acceptance of a Cloud Data Access Control System Based on Reputation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development of the Internet, cloud storage has penetrated into every aspect of human society. However, cloud data disclosure happens more and more frequently, which makes cloud data security and privacy protection impact wide adoption of cloud storage. Control cloud data access based on reputation by introducing a Reputation Center (RC) was proposed and demonstrated to secure cloud data effectively in [9] . But the acceptance of such a system by cloud users and Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) is crucial for its practical deployment and final success. In this paper, we investigate the acceptance of a cloud data access control system based on reputation using Game Theory. Due to the existence of dishonest CSPs, there exists a social reputation dilemma among CSPs, which seriously impedes the popularity of cloud storage. To encourage users to use cloud storage and suppress collusion between CSPs and data requesters, a repeated public-goods game is built up by applying a compensation mechanism to improve the utilities of cloud users and a punishment mechanism based on reputation to incent honest behaviors. Theoretical analysis and simulation results show the effectiveness of the compensation and punishment mechanisms to increase cloud storage rate and restrain dishonest system entities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it