| Literature DB >> 28885602 |
Yuyu Yin1,2, Fangzheng Yu3,4, Yueshen Xu5, Lifeng Yu6, Jinglong Mu7.
Abstract
Cyber-physical systems (CPS) have received much attention from both academia and industry. An increasing number of functions in CPS are provided in the way of services, which gives rise to an urgent task, that is, how to recommend the suitable services in a huge number of available services in CPS. In traditional service recommendation, collaborative filtering (CF) has been studied in academia, and used in industry. However, there exist several defects that limit the application of CF-based methods in CPS. One is that under the case of high data sparsity, CF-based methods are likely to generate inaccurate prediction results. In this paper, we discover that mining the potential similarity relations among users or services in CPS is really helpful to improve the prediction accuracy. Besides, most of traditional CF-based methods are only capable of using the service invocation records, but ignore the context information, such as network location, which is a typical context in CPS. In this paper, we propose a novel service recommendation method for CPS, which utilizes network location as context information and contains three prediction models using random walking. We conduct sufficient experiments on two real-world datasets, and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed methods and verify that the network location is indeed useful in QoS prediction.Entities:
Keywords: QoS prediction; cyber-physical systems; network location; random walk; service recommendation
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28885602 PMCID: PMC5621120 DOI: 10.3390/s17092059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
A toy example of the user-service invocation matrix.
| Service 1 | Service 2 | Service 3 | Service 4 | Servcie 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| User 1 | ? | ? | 1.74 | ? | ? |
| User 2 | 1.28 | ? | ? | ? | 3.14 |
| User 3 | ? | ? | ? | 0.89 | ? |
| User 4 | 3.21 | ? | ? | ? | 1.35 |
Figure 1The real-world service invocation scenario in cyber-physical systems (CPS).
Figure 2Network location-based user partition in CPS.
Figure 3The proposed quality-of-service (QoS) prediction framework.
Figure 4The procedure of user-based random walk model.
Figure 5The undirected graph of user similarity.
Statistics of data.
| Attributes | Numbers |
|---|---|
| the number of users | 339 |
| the number of services | 5828 |
| the number of invocation records | 1,974,675 |
| the number of user countries | 30 |
| the number of service countries | 73 |
| average value of response time | 0.81 |
| average value of throughput | 44.03 |
Accuracy comparison (a smaller value means higher accuracy).
| Model | Training Set Density (TD)—Response Time Dataset | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TD = 5% | TD = 10% | TD = 15% | TD = 20% | |||||
| MAE | NMAE | MAE | NMAE | MAE | NMAE | MAE | NMAE | |
| UserMean | 0.8818 | 1.0873 | 0.8794 | 1.0832 | 0.8788 | 1.0832 | 0.8785 | 1.0837 |
| ItemMean | 0.7223 | 0.8904 | 0.7082 | 0.8723 | 0.7014 | 0.8642 | 0.7002 | 0.8630 |
| UPCC | 0.7568 | 0.9332 | 0.7137 | 0.8802 | 0.6311 | 0.7779 | 0.5919 | 0.7298 |
| IPCC | 0.7184 | 0.8851 | 0.7345 | 0.9061 | 0.6991 | 0.8617 | 0.6503 | 0.8013 |
| WSRec | 0.6832 | 0.9409 | 0.6306 | 0.8390 | 0.6137 | 0.7810 | 0.6020 | 0.7545 |
| LACF | 0.6575 | 0.8476 | 0.6398 | 0.8011 | 0.6023 | 0.7425 | 0.5723 | 0.7055 |
| SVD | 0.5793 | 0.7142 | 0.5683 | 0.7006 | 0.5430 | 0.6704 | 0.5328 | 0.6568 |
Accuracy comparison (a smaller value means higher accuracy).
| Model | Training Set Density (TD)—Throughput Dataset | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TD = 5% | TD = 10% | TD = 15% | TD = 20% | |||||
| MAE | NMAE | MAE | NMAE | MAE | NMAE | MAE | NMAE | |
| UserMean | 51.032 | 1.1644 | 52.822 | 1.1665 | 51.051 | 1.1597 | 51.490 | 1.1584 |
| ItemMean | 32.386 | 0.7389 | 32.226 | 0.7117 | 31.889 | 0.7244 | 31.895 | 0.7175 |
| UPCC | 29.157 | 0.6653 | 25.464 | 0.5624 | 22.270 | 0.5059 | 20.479 | 0.4607 |
| IPCC | 47.748 | 1.0894 | 47.098 | 1.0401 | 40.802 | 0.9321 | 39.505 | 0.8887 |
| WSRec | 30.502 | 0.6783 | 26.532 | 0.5892 | 22.025 | 0.5048 | 20.213 | 0.4587 |
| LACF | 28.612 | 0.6543 | 25.451 | 0.5714 | 22.403 | 0.5123 | 20.105 | 0.4439 |
| SVD | 35.972 | 0.7072 | 32.563 | 0.6753 | 31.852 | 0.6528 | 29.774 | 0.6303 |
Figure 6Sensitivity to λ. (a) Training set density = 5%; (b) Training set density = 10%; (c) Training set density = 5%; (d) Training set density = 10%.
Figure 7Sensitivity to K. (a) Training set density = 5%; (b) Training set density = 10%; (c) Training set density = 15%; (d) Training set density = 20%.
Running time comparison (unit: second).
| Model | Training Set Density (TD)—Response Time Dataset | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TD = 5% | TD = 10% | TD = 15% | TD = 20% | |
| Running Time (s) | Running Time (s) | Running Time (s) | Running Time (s) | |
| UPCC | 22.139 | 43.727 | 77.589 | 136.889 |
| IPCC | 358.659 | 612.326 | 941.629 | 1243.632 |
| WSRec | 383.324 | 659.884 | 1012.265 | 1372.266 |
| LACF | 267.514 | 483.721 | 831.260 | 1152.265 |
| SVD | 399.347 | 811.453 | 1232.871 | 1982.789 |