A new model for trustworthy web service <scp>QoS</scp> prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The number of web services available on the internet has exploded, and as a result, the number of services with the same functionality has exploded as well. Therefore, selecting the best web service from functionally similar services is a critical task in the web service domain. The Quality of Service (QoS) is one of the most common criteria used to select the best web service. Collaborative filtering (CF) has been utilized in several studies to predict the values of QoS attributes of web services for each user in a personalized way. The QoS histories of other users are employed in these methods to predict the QoS values of the active user. Although these methods function well and produce acceptable prediction results, the accuracy of their predictions can be harmed by incorrect data provided by untrustworthy users. In this study, we propose a new model that reduces the impact of unreliable user data, resulting in a trustworthy prediction. This model can be applied to any existing prediction method. In experiments, the proposed model was applied to seven known prediction methods. The results indicate that this model is able to eliminate the impact of unreliable users.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".