Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The classic TSR models in S-SNs.

A: Reputation-based. B: Local trust-based.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Intuitive comparisons between our IRLT model and other TSR models in S-SNs.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Our IRLT model for TSR in S-SNs.

①: TSR request. ② and ③: Candidate services. ④ and ⑤: Candidate services with local trust values. ⑥: Candidate services with reputation values. ⑦ and ⑧: Top-k recommendation list.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

A simple example of our multi-QoS based filtering method.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

A simple example of aggregation trust evaluation.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

The values of parameters in experiments.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 3.

The variations of three kinds of DCG metric values with k in honest environment.

A: DCG-LT. B: DCG-RP. C: DCG-FT.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The variation of total DCG-FT metric value of malicious services with k in malicious environment with ballot stuffing attack.

A: PCSC = 0%. B: PCSC = 20%. C: PCSC = 40%. D: PCSC = 60%. E: PCSC = 80%. F: PCSC = 100%.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

The variation of total DCG-FT metric value of honest services with k in malicious environment with bad mouthing attack.

A: PCSC = 0%. B: PCSC = 20%. C: PCSC = 40%. D: PCSC = 60%. E: PCSC = 80%. F: PCSC = 100%.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

The variations of total DCG-FT metric values of honest services (HS) and malicious services (MS) with k in malicious environment with ballot stuffing and bad mouthing attacks.

A: PCSC = 0%. B: PCSC = 25%. C: PCSC = 50%. D: PCSC = 75%. E: PCSC = 100%.

More »

Fig 6 Expand