Cluster Computing

, Volume 22, Supplement 3, pp 7369–7378 | Cite as

An influence diagram based cloud service selection approach in dynamic cloud marketplaces



Cloud service selection is one of the key issues for service users. An important concern for this issue is to make an optimal policy that adapt to a dynamic cloud marketplace that different types of changes may happen during a service consumption process, for example, the change of the cloud service providers and the provisioned cloud services in this marketplace, the change of the requirements of service users on service performance, e.g. Quality of services (QoSs) and service functions, and the change of the termination time points of a consumed service. These changes require a dynamic modelling method for cloud service selection, while existing service selection approaches rarely consider such dynamicity. Therefore, we propose a novel Cloud service selection framework based on Markov decision processes (MDPs), which can help Cloud service users to select a set of services meeting the QoS requirements and the economic constraints of service users. The MDP, as one of the primary decision theoretic planning tools, is capable of formalizing the uncertainties in the dynamic marketplace, and making service selection policies to achieve the best trade-off between costs and benefits. We use the causal-mapping approach to construct the structure of influence diagrams, and a Gauss kernel estimation method to estimate the marginal distributions of QoSs. Our experiments are based on simulated scenarios and real datasets. The experimental results show that the proposed framework is capable of accurately capturing the features of QoS values, predicting the QoS performance, and efficiently adapting to the changes in a long-term service consumption to facilitate policy determinations in a dynamic marketplace.


Cloud service selection Markov decision process Dynamic influence diagrams Dynamic cloud marketplace 


  1. 1.
    Garg, S.K., Versteeg, S., Buyya, R.: SMIcloud: a framework for comparing and ranking cloud services. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC’11), Melbourne, Australia, pp. 5–7 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, F., Dou, R., Li, M., Wu, H.: A flexible QoS-aware Web service composition method by multi-objective optimization in cloud manufacturing. Comput. Ind. Eng. 99, 423–431 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cid-López, A., Hornos, M.J., Carrasco, R.A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Chiclana, F.: Linguistic multi-criteria decision-making model with output variable expressive richness. Expert Syst. Appl. 83, 350–362 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar, R.R., Mishra, S., Kumar, C.: Prioritizing the solution of cloud service selection using integrated MCDM methods under Fuzzy environment. J. Supercomput. 1–31 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding, S., Xia, C.Y., Zhou, K.L., Yang, S.L., Shang, J.S.: Decision support for personalized cloud service selection through multi-attribute trustworthiness evaluation. PloS ONE 9(6), e97762 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jatoth, C., Gangadharan, G.R., Fiore, U.: Evaluating the efficiency of cloud services using modified data envelopment analysis and modified super-efficiency data envelopment analysis. Soft Comput. 21(23), 7221–7234 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ma, H., Zhu, H., Hu, Z., Li, K., Tang, W.: Time-aware trustworthiness ranking prediction for cloud services using interval neutrosophic set and ELECTRE. Knowl.-Based Syst. (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jatoth, C., Gangadharan, G.R., Buyya, R.: Computational intelligence based QoS-aware web service composition: a systematic literature review. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 10(3), 475–492 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ciavotta, M., Ardagna, D., Gibilisco, G.P.: A mixed integer linear programming optimization approach for multi-cloud capacity allocation. J. Syst. Softw. 123, 64–78 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tanaka, M., Murakami, Y.: Strategy-proof pricing for cloud service composition. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 4(3), 363–375 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ye, Z., Bouguettaya, A., Zhou, X.: QoS-aware cloud service composition based on economic models. In: Proceedings 10th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, Shanghai, China, November, pp. 12–15 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zheng, Z., Wu, X., Zhang, Y., Lyu, M., Wang, J.: QoS ranking prediction for cloud services. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 24(99), 1213–1222 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jung, G., Mukherjee, T., Kunde, S., Kim, H., Sharma, N., Goetz, F.: CloudAdvisor: a recommendation-as-a-service platform for cloud configuration and pricing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Ninth World Congress on Services (SERVICES), Santa Clara, CA, June 28–July 3 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, H., Wang, X., Zhang, X., Yu, Q., Hu, X.: Effective service composition using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Knowl.-Based Syst. 92, 151–168 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coelho, M.D.P., Saraiva, J.T., Pereira, A.J.: Long term impacts of RES-E promotion in the Brazilian power system. In PowerTech, 2017 IEEE Manchester, pp. 1–6. IEEE (June 2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mannor, S., Mebel, O., Xu, H.: Robust MDPs with k-rectangular uncertainty. Math. Oper. Res. 41(4), 1484–1509 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rodas Cabrera, J.A., Sang, F., Garibaldi, L.A.: Portfolio management strategies to maximize profitability from mature fields under optimal cash exposure mode in ecuador. In: SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers (May 2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen, N., Kou, S., Wang, C.: A partitioning algorithm for Markov decision processes with applications to market microstructure. Manag. Sci. 63, 2773–2775 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Su, G., Chen, T., Feng, Y., Rosenblum, D.S., Thiagarajan, P.S.: An iterative decision-making scheme for Markov Decision Processes and its application to self-adaptive systems. In: International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, pp. 269–286. Springer, Berlin, (April 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ye, Z., Bouguettaya, A., Zhou, X.: Economic model-driven cloud service composition. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. (TOIT) 14(2–3), 20 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kratochvíl, V., Vomlel, J.: Influence diagrams for speed profile optimization. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 88, 567–586 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Panella, A., Gmytrasiewicz, P.: Interactive POMDPs with finite-state models of other agents. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 1–44 (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Heijden, M., Velikova, M., Lucas, P.J.: Learning Bayesian networks for clinical time series analysis. J. Biomed. Inform. 48, 94–105 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wei, Q., Liu, D., Lin, H.: Value iteration adaptive dynamic programming for optimal control of discrete-time nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 46(3), 840–853 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kjræulff, U.B., Madsen, A.L.: Bayesian networks and influence diagrams: a guide to construction and analysis. Springer, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wee, Y.Y., Cheah, W.P., Tan, S.C., Wee, K.: A method for root cause analysis with a Bayesian belief network and fuzzy cognitive map. Expert Syst. Appl. 42(1), 468–487 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sun, L., Dong, H., Hussain, F., Hussain, O.: Multicriteria decision making with fuzziness and criteria interdependence in cloud service selection. In: Proc. The IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, Beijing, pp. 6–11 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zheng, H., Yang, J., Zhao, W.: Qos probability distribution estimation for web services and service compositions. In: Editor (Ed.)\(\wedge \)(Eds.): Book Qos probability distribution estimation for web services and service compositions’, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shimazaki, H., Shinomoto, S.: Kernel bandwidth optimization in spike rate estimation. J. Comput. Neurosci. 29(1–2), 171–182 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Syntetos, A.A., Babai, M.Z., Gardner, E.S.: Forecasting intermittent inventory demands: simple parametric methods versus bootstrapping. J. Bus. Res. 68(8), 1746–1752 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wagner, F., Ishikawa, F., Honiden, S.: Robust service compositions with functional and location diversity. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 9(2), 277–290 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Montgomery, D.C.: Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, Hoboken (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carter, R.E.: A standard error: distinguishing standard deviation from standard error. Diabetes 62(8), e15–e15 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer and SoftwareNanjing University of Information Science and TechnologyNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations