Web Services Trust Assessment Based on Probabilistic Databases

  • Zohra SaoudEmail author
  • Noura Faci
  • Zakaria Maamar
  • Djamal Benslimane
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9466)


This paper discusses the assessment of Web services trust. This assessment is undermined by the uncertainty that raises due to end-users’ ratings that can be questioned and variations in Web services performance at run-time. To tackle the first uncertainty a fuzzy-based credibility model is suggested so that the gap between end-users (known as strict) and the current majority is reduced. To deal with the second uncertainty we propose a probabilistic trust approach. A series of experiments are carried out to validate the probabilistic approach built upon probabilistic databases and a fuzzy-based credibility model. The results show that the probabilistic approach improves significantly trust quality. Future work consists of incorporating several credibility models into one probabilistic trust model.


Web service Trust Probability Credibility Fuzzy clustering 


  1. 1.
    Bezdek, J.: Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York (1981)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bordens, K., Horowitz, I.: Social Psychology. Psychology Press, Mahwah (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cavallo, R., Pittarelli, M.: The theory of probabilistic databases. In: Very Large Data Bases Conferences. Brighton, England (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalvi, N., Suciu, D.: Efficient query evaluation on probabilistic databases. VLDB J. 16(4), 523–544 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuhr, N., Rölleke, T.: A probabilistic relational algebra for the integration of information retrieval and database systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (TOIS) 15(1), 32–66 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang, J., Antova, L., Koch, C., Olteanu, D.: Maybms: a probabilistic database management system. In: SIGMOD Conference, New York, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IEEE: Standard glossary of software engineering terminology. Technical report. IEEE Computer Society Press (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jayram, T.S., Kale, S., Vee, E.: Efficient aggregation algorithms for probabilistic data. In: Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, New Orleans, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanungo, T., Mount, D., Netanyahu, N., Piatko, C., Silverman, R., Wu, A.: An efficient k-means clustering algorithm: analysis and implementation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24(7), 881–892 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, Y., Kim, D.: A study of online transaction self-efficacy, consumer trust, and uncertainty reduction in electronic commerce transaction. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kyburg, H.E.: Bayesian and non-bayesian evidential updating. Artif. Intell. 3(1), 271–294 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lesko, W.: Readings in Social Psychology: General, Classic and Contemporary Selections. Allyn & Bacon, Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malik, Z., Bouguettaya, A.: Rateweb: reputation assessment for trust establishment among web services. Very Large Data Bases (VLDB) J. 18(4), 885–911 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen, N., Caruana, R.: Consensus clusterings. In: International Conference on Data Mining, Omaha, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noor, T., Sheng, Q., Ngu, A., Alfazi, A., Law, J.: Cloud armor: a platform for credibility-based trust management of cloud services. In: The ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarma, A., Benjelloun, O., Halevy, A., Widom, J.: Working models for uncertain data. In: International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Atlanta, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schum, D., Morris, J.: Assessing the competence and credibility of human sources of intelligence evidence: contributions from law and probability. Law Probab. Risk 6(1), 247–274 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sen, P., Deshpande, A.: Representing and querying correlated tuples in probabilistic databases. In: International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Istanbul, Turkey (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sternthal, B., Phillips, L., Dholakia, R.: The persuasive effect of source credibility: a situational analysis. Pub. Opin. Q. 42(3), 285–314 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suciu, D., Olteanu, D., Koch, C.: Probabilistic Databases. Synthesis digital library of engineering and computer science (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Teacy, W.T., Patel, J., Jennings, N.R., Luck, M.: Travos: trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 12(2), 183–198 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Troffaes, M.: Generalizing the conjunction rule for aggregating conflicting expert opinions. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 21(3), 361–380 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, Y., Singh, M.: Formal trust model for multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, Hyderabad, India (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yager, R.R.: Participatory learning: a paradigm for building better digital and human agents. Law Probab. Risk 3(1), 133–145 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu, B., Singh, M.P.: An evidential model of distributed reputation management. In: International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Bologna, Italy (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zohra Saoud
    • 1
    Email author
  • Noura Faci
    • 1
  • Zakaria Maamar
    • 2
  • Djamal Benslimane
    • 1
  1. 1.Université Lyon 1VilleurbanneFrance
  2. 2.Zayed UniversityDubaiUAE

Personalised recommendations