Balancing Privacy Risk and Benefit in Service Selection for Multiprovision Cloud Service Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The popularity of cloud computing has fueled the growth in multiprovision cloud service composition (MPCSC), where each cloud service provider (CSP) can fulfill multiple tasks, i.e., offer multiple services, simultaneously. In the MPCSC, users would rather disclose some private data for more benefits (e.g., personalized services). However, the more private data is released, the more serious the privacy risk faced by users. In particular, the multiservice provision characteristic of MPCSC further exacerbates the privacy risk. Therefore, how to balance the privacy risk and benefit in service selection for MPCSC is a challenging research problem. In this paper, firstly we explore the service selection problem of balancing privacy risk and benefit in MPCSC (SSBM), then we propose an improved Kuhn–Munkres (KM) algorithm solution to the SSBM problem. Furthermore, we conduct a series of simulation experiments to evaluate the proposed approach. The experimental results show that the proposed approach is both efficient and effective for solving the SSBM problem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| 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".