Forming Groups in the Cloud of Things Using Trust Measures

  • Giancarlo Fortino
  • Lidia Fotia
  • Fabrizio Messina
  • Domenico Rosaci
  • Giuseppe M. L. SarnéEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 798)


The need of managing complex and interactive activities is becoming a key challenge in the “Internet of Things” (IoT) and leads to request large hardware and power resources. A possibility of facing such a problem is represented by the possibility of virtualizing physical IoT environments over the so called Cloud-of-Things (CoT), where each device is associated with one or more software agents working in the Cloud on its behalf. In this open and heterogeneous context, IoT devices obtain significant advantages by the social cooperation of software agents, and the selection of the most trustworthy partners for cooperating becomes a crucial issue, making necessary to use a suitable trust model. The cooperation activity can be further improved by clustering agents in different groups on the basis of trust measures, allowing each agent will to interact with the agents belonging to its own group. To this purpose, we designed an algorithm to form agent groups on the basis of information about reliability and reputation collected by the agents. In order to validate both the efficiency and effectiveness of our approach, we performed some experiments in a simulated scenario, which showed significant advantages introduces by the use of the trust measures.


  1. 1.
    Sheng, Z., Yang, S., Yu, Y., Vasilakos, A., Mccann, J., Leung, K.: A survey on the IETF protocol suite for the internet of things: standards, challenges, and opportunities. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 20(6), 91–98 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fortino, G., Trunfio, P.: Internet of Things Based on Smart Objects: Technology, Middleware and Applications. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wei, Y., Blake, M.B.: Service-oriented computing and cloud computing: challenges and opportunities. IEEE Internet Comput. 14(6), 72–75 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aazam, M., Khan, I., Alsaffar, A. A., Huh, E.-N.: Cloud of Things: integrating internet of things and cloud computing and the issues involved. In: 2014 11th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST), pp. 414–419. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fortino, G., Gravina, R., Russo, W., Savaglio, C.: Modeling and simulating Internet-of-Things systems: a hybrid agent-oriented approach. Comput. Sci. Eng. 19(5), 68–76 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doodson, J., Gavin, J., Joiner, R.: Getting acquainted with groups and individuals: information seeking, social uncertainty and social network sites. In: ICWSM (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fotia, L., Messina, F., Rosaci, D., Sarné, G.M.L.: Using local trust for forming cohesive social structures in virtual communities. Comput. J. 60(11), 1717–1727 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Meo, P., Messina, F., Rosaci, D., Sarné, G. M. L.: Recommending users in social networks by integrating local and global reputation. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Internet and Distributed Information Systems. LNCS, vol. 8729, pp. 437–446. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aikebaier, A., Enokido, T., Takizawa, M.: Trustworthy group making algorithm in distributed systems. Hum. Centric Comput. Inf. Sci. 1(1), 6 (2011). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huynh, T., Jennings, N., Shadbolt, N.: An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. 13(2), 119–154 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dellarocas, C.: Designing Reputation Systems for the Social Web. Boston University Questrom School of Business Research Paper Series. Paper No. 2010-18. SSRN: (2010)
  12. 12.
    Kim, Y., Song, H.: Strategies for predicting local trust based on trust propagation in social networks. Knowl. Based Syst. 24(8), 1360–1371 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Massa, P., Avesani, P.: Trust metrics on controversial users: balancing between tyranny of the majority. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst. (IJSWIS) 3(1), 39–64 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ziegler, C., Lausen, G.: Spreading activation models for trust propagation. In: 2004 IEEE International Conference on one-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service, EEE 2004, pp. 83–97. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Golbeck, J., Hendler, J.: Inferring binary trust relationships in web-based social networks. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 6(4), 497–529 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guha, R., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., Tomkins, A.: Propagation of trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 403–412. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Golbeck, J.: Computing and applying trust in web-based social networks. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland, Department of Computer Science (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Massa, P., Avesani, P.: Trust-aware recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Conference on Recommender systems, pp. 17–24. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jamali, M., Ester, M.: Trustwalker: a random walk model for combining trust-based and item-based recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 397–406. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Council, N.R., et al.: Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xia, L.: Computational voting theory: game-theoretic and combinatorial aspects. Ph.D. thesis, Duke University (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beierle, T.C., Cayford, J.: Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Maudet, N.: A short introduction to computational social choice, In: Theory and Practice of Computer Science, SOFSEM 2007, pp. 51–69 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Universal voting protocol tweaks to make manipulation hard, arXiv preprint cs/0307018Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gibbard, A.: Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica J. Econ. Soc. 41, 587–601 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lai, L.S., Turban, E.: Groups formation and operations in the web 2.0 environment and social networks. Group Decis. Negot. 17(5), 387–402 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giancarlo Fortino
    • 1
  • Lidia Fotia
    • 2
  • Fabrizio Messina
    • 3
  • Domenico Rosaci
    • 2
  • Giuseppe M. L. Sarné
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.DIMESUniversity of CalabriaRendeItaly
  2. 2.DIIESUniversity “Mediterranea”Reggio CalabriaItaly
  3. 3.DMIUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly
  4. 4.DICEAMUniversity “Mediterranea”Reggio CalabriaItaly

Personalised recommendations