Telecommunication Systems

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 283–295 | Cite as

Towards Quality of Experience-based reputation models for future web service provisioning

  • T. Ciszkowski
  • W. Mazurczyk
  • Z. Kotulski
  • T. Hoßfeld
  • M. Fiedler
  • D. Collange
Open Access
Article

Abstract

This paper concerns the applicability of reputations systems for assessing Quality of Experience (QoE) for web services in the Future Internet. Reputation systems provide mechanisms to manage subjective opinions in societies and yield a general scoring of a particular behavior. Thus, they are likely to become an important ingredient of the Future Internet. Parameters under evaluation by a reputation system may vary greatly and, particularly, may be chosen to assess the users’ satisfaction with (composite) web services. Currently, this satisfaction is usually expressed by QoE, which represents subjective users’ opinions. The goal of this paper is to present a novel framework of web services where a reputation system is incorporated for tracking and predicting of users’ satisfaction. This approach is a beneficial tool which enables providers to facilitate service adaptation according to users’ expectations and maintain QoE at a satisfactory level. Presented reputation systems operate in an environment of composite services that integrate client and server-side. This approach is highly suitable for effective QoE differentiating and maximizing user experience for specific customer profiles as even the service and network resources are shared.

Keywords

Reputation systems Quality of Experience (QoE) Web services Service composition Future Internet 

References

  1. 1.
    Amazon Auctions. http://auctions.amazon.com.
  2. 2.
    Buyya, R., Yeo, C. S., & Venugopal, S. (2008). Market-oriented cloud. computing: vision, hype, and reality for delivering IT Services as computing utilities. Dep. of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Australia, 9 pp. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carter, J., Bitting, E., & Ghorbani, A. (2002). Reputation formalization for an information-sharing multi-agent system. Computational Intelligence, 18(4), 515–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carrara, E., & Hogben, G. (Eds.) (2007). ENISA position paper, reputation-based systems: a security analysis. European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciszkowski, T., & Kotulski, Z. (2007). Distributed reputation management in collaborative environment of anonymous MANETs. In Proc. of the IEEE international conference on computer as a tool, EUROCON, Warsaw, Poland (pp. 1028–1033). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciszkowski, T., Eliasson, Ch., Fiedler, M., Kotulski, Z., Lupu, R., & Mazurczyk, W. (2008). SecMon: end-to-end quality and security monitoring system. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skołdowska. Sectio AI, Informatica, 8, 186–201. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    European Future Internet Portal. http://www.future-internet.eu.
  9. 9.
    Eliasson, Ch., Fiedler, M., Ciszkowski, T., Kotulski, Z., & Mazurczyk, W. (2008). Parameterisation of a reputation system for VoIP in P2P networks for improved communication quality and security. In Socio-economic aspects of future generation Internet workshop, Karlskrona, Sweden, May, 2008. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engelke, U., & Zepernick, H.-J. (2007). Perceptual-based quality metrics for image and video services: a survey. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on next generation Internet networks (NGI’07), Trondheim, Norway. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fiedler, M., Tutschku, K., Carlsson, P., & Nilsson, A. A. (2003). Identification of performance degradation in IP networks using throughput statistics. In Proceedings of the 18th international teletraffic congress (ITC’18), Berlin, Germany. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fiedler, M., Chevul, S., Radtke, O., Tutschku, K., & Binzenhöfer, A. (2005). The network utility function: a practicable concept for assessing network impact on distributed services. In Proc. of the 19th international teletraffic congress (ITC’19), Beijing, China. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fiedler, M., Hoßfeld, T., & Tran-Gia, P. (2010). A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service. IEEE Network, 24(2), 36–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoßfeld, T., Binzenhöfer, A., Fiedler, M., & Tutschku, K. (2006). Measurement and analysis of Skype VoIP traffic in 3G UMTS systems. In Proc. of the 4th int’l work on Internet performance, simulation, monitoring and measurement (IPS-MoMe’06), Austria. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoßfeld, T., Tran-Gia, P., & Fiedler, M. (2007). Quantification of quality of experience for edge-based applications. In 20th international teletraffic congress (ITC’20), Canada, June 2007. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoßfeld, T., Hock, D., Tran-Gia, P., Tutschku, K., & Fiedler, M. (2008). Testing the IQX hypothesis for exponential interdependency between QoS and QoE of voice codecs iLBC and G.711. In 18th ITC specialist seminar on quality of experience, Sweden, May 2008. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Telecommunication Union (2001). ITU-T recommendation P.862, Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality (PESQ), an objective method for end-to-end speech quality assessment of narrowband telephone networks and speech codecs. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jøsang, A. (2001). Logic for uncertain probabilities. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(3), 279–311. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jøsang, A., & Ismail, R. (2002). The beta reputation system. In Proceedings of the 15th bled electronic commerce conference, Bled, Slovenia, June 2002. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jøsang, A., Hayward, R., & Pope, S. (2006). Trust network analysis with subjective logic. In CRPIT: Vol. 48. Proc. of the 29th Australasian computer science conference (ACSC2006), Hobart, Australia, January 2006. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 301–686. Emerging Issues in Collaborative Commerce. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jøsang, A., Haller, J., & Dirichlet (2007). Reputation systems. In Proc. of the international conference on availability, reliability and security (ARES), Austria, April 2007. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jøsang, A., Bhuiyan, T., Xu, Y., & Cox, C. (2008). Combining trust and reputation management for web-based services. In Proceedings of TrustBus2008, Turin, September 2008. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khirman, S., & Henriksen, P. (2002). Relationship between quality-of-service and quality-of-experience for public Internet service. In 3th passive and active measurement workshop (PAM2002), Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, March 2002. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kusuma, T. M., & Zepernick, H.-J. (2003). A reduced-reference perceptual quality metric for in-service image quality assessment. In Proceedings of IEEE symposium on trends in communications (Sympo TIC’03). Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liau, C. Y. et al. (2003). Efficient distributed reputation scheme for peer-to-peer systems. In LNCS: Vol. 2713. Proc. of the 2nd international Human.Society@Internet conference (HSI). Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu, J., & Issarny, V. (2004). Enhanced reputation mechanism for mobile Ad Hoc networks. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu, J., & Issarny, V. (2007). An incentive compatible reputation mechanism for ubiquitous computing environments. International Journal of Information Security, 6(5), 297–311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mehta, B., Hofmann, T., & Nejdl, W. (2007). Robust collaborative filtering. In ACM conference on recommender systems archive, Proceedings of the 2007 ACM conference on recommender systems table of contents, USA (pp. 49–56). Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., & Halberstadt, A. (2002). A computational model of trust and reputation. In Proceedings of the 35th HICSS. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., & Hilberstadt, A. (2002). Notions of reputation in multi-agents systems: a review. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1, Bologna, Italy (pp. 280–287). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring, Nature, 393, 573–577. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0, O’Reilly network. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.
  34. 34.
    Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1998). The PageRank citation ranking: bringing order to the web (Technical Report). Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pastrana-Vidal, R. R., & Gicquel, J.-C. (2006). Automatic quality assessment of video fluidity impairments using a no-reference metric. In Proceedings of 4th international workshop on video processing and quality metrics for consumer electronics (VPQM’06). Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pollock, G., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1992). Reciprocity and the evolution of reputation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 159, 25–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ramchurn, S. D., Sierra, C., Godo, L., & Jennings, N. R. (2003). A computational trust model for multi-agent interactions based on confidence and reputation. In Proc. 6th int. workshop of deception, fraud and trust in agent societies, Australia, July 2003 (pp. 69–75). Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Friedman, E., & Kuwabara, K. (2000). Reputation systems. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 45–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ries, M., Nemethova, O., & Rupp, M. (2007). Motion based reference-free quality estimation for H.264/AVC video streaming. In 2nd int’l. symposium on wireless pervasive computing. Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sabater, J., & Sierra, C. (2002). Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In Proc. 1st int. joint conf. on autonomous agents and multi-agent system (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, July 2002 (pp. 475–482). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shaikh, J., Fiedler, M., & Collange, D. (2010). Quality of experience from user and network perspectives. Annals of Telecommunications, 65(1–2), 47–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shi, X.-b., Liu, F., Du, L., & Chen, X.-h. (2007). A cheating detection mechanism based on fuzzy reputation management of P2P MMOGs. In 8th ACIS int. conf. on software engineering, artificial intelligence, networking, and parallel/distributed computing (SNPD 2007) (pp. 75–80). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Song, S., Hwang, K., Zhou, R., & Kwok, Y.-K. (2005). Trusted P2P transactions with fuzzy reputation aggregation. IEEE Internet Computing, 9(6), 24–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tele Management Forum. http://www.tmforum.org.
  45. 45.
    Wang, Z., Lu, L., & Bovik, A. C. (2004). Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measurement. Signal Processing. Image Communication, 19(2), 121–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Ciszkowski
    • 1
  • W. Mazurczyk
    • 1
  • Z. Kotulski
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Hoßfeld
    • 3
  • M. Fiedler
    • 4
  • D. Collange
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of TelecommunicationsWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Institute of Fundamental Technological ResearchPolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  4. 4.School of ComputingBlekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden
  5. 5.France Télécom R&DSophia-AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations