Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ding 2018
Ding 2018
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The quality of service (QoS) of cloud services change frequently over time. Existing service recommendation ap-
Received 18 March 2017 proaches either ignore this property or address it inadequately, leading to ineffective service recommendation. In
Received in revised form 8 December 2017 this paper, we propose a time-aware service recommendation (taSR) approach to address this issue. We first de-
Accepted 25 December 2017
velop a novel similarity-enhanced collaborative filtering (CF) approach to capture the time feature of user simi-
Available online 8 January 2018
larity and address the data sparsity in the existing PITs (point in time). We then apply autoregressive integrated
Keywords:
moving average model (ARIMA) to predict the QoS values in the future PIT under QoS instantaneity. We evaluate
Cloud service the proposed approach and compare it to the state-of-the-art. Our experimental results show that taSR achieves
Time-aware recommendation significant performance improvements over existing approaches.
QoS © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Similarity-enhanced CF
ARIMA
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.12.012
0167-9236/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
104 S. Ding et al. / Decision Support Systems 107 (2018) 103–115
the limitations in existing methods. The followings summarize our invocations. Wang et al. [18] predicted the current QoS by the linear
contributions. combination of similar sequences and estimated the linear combination
coefficients by Lasso. Ye et al. [6] proposed to integrate ARIMA model
(1) TaSR, by combining CF model and ARIMA model, exploits the ad- and Holt-Winters model for better long-term QoS performance. Chu et
vantages of both models. TaSR adopts a CF method to replenish al. [19] proposed a time-aware Bayesian network to discover the time
the missing QoS values such that the data series are ready for dependent quality of service relationships structure. Geebelen et al. [5]
constructing effective ARIMA model. It then exploits ARIMA used kernel-based quantile estimator, a powerful non-linear black-box
model to precisely capture the dynamics of QoS values and pre- regressor, with online adaptation of the constant offset to predict future
dict QoS values at future PITs (point in time). TaSR formulates QoS values. Hu et al. [17] took the latest observation as a feedback to re-
the service recommendation as multi-criterion decision-making vise forecasts to future QoS values for each individual service with
(MCDM) problem, which normalizes and weights in multiple Kalman filtering.
QoS indicators, for better service recommendation. In summary, the traditional CF approaches failed to precisely
(2) TaSR, by integrating user global similarity and user invocation characterize the temporal dynamics of QoS, even though the con-
similarity, improves the CF method for time-aware user similar- struction of time-aware models need high quality QoS data. The
ity estimation. The proposed similarity-enhanced CF approach existing time-aware QoS-based recommendation schemes cannot
can comprehensively capture the dynamics of user similarity fully address the instantaneity of QoS values. In this article, we first
and accurately predict the missing QoS values at either a past propose novel similarity-enhanced CF approach to capture the time
PIT and the current PIT. feature of similarity estimation and replenish the missing QoS
(3) We evaluate the proposed taSR approach and compare it to the value for further prediction. The ARIMA model is then applied to
state-of-the-art. The experimental results show that taSR predict the QoS values in the near future for better accuracy. Finally,
achieves significant improvements over CF-based approaches as a MCDM problem, the different indicators are combined to recom-
and ARIMA-based approaches in various settings. mend cloud services.
(a) The collected raw matrices (b) The predicted matrix for the future PIT
Fig. 2. Modeling the user, service, and PIT relationship.
106 S. Ding et al. / Decision Support Systems 107 (2018) 103–115
Attenuation Function [12, 24, 25]. Two users are regarded as similar if they either invoke
1.0 or do not invoke a service at a given time. In this paper, we convert
the service invocation record of each user-service pair to a binary
0.9 string with the values in the string sorted by their invocation times.
0.8 Therefore, we quantify the similarity using edit distance (ED), a
method that has been widely adopted to evaluate the similarity of
0.7
α =0.5 different strings [26, 27, 28]. Adopting edit distance helps to capture
0.6 not only the same invocation but also the same un-invocation, i.e., a
0.5 α =1 service is not invocated by either user. The latter is often ignored in
f (h)
h/H 8
> j
edit pq ð0; 0Þ ¼ 0; m¼n¼0
>
>
>
>
>
>
j
edit pq ðm; 0Þ ¼ m; mN0 and n ¼ 0
Fig. 3. The similarity attenuation function. >
>
>
< edit j ð0; nÞ ¼ n; m ¼ 0 and nN0
Bpj
pq 8
>
> > edit pq
>
j
ðm; n−1Þ þ 1
>
> <
There exist two main types of attenuation functions, i.e., logistic >
> j j
>
> edit ðm; nÞ ¼ min edit pq ðm−1; nÞ þ 1 ; mN0 and nN0
function and exponential function [23]. A logistic function is an S- >
>
pq
>
>
: : edit j ðm−1; n−1Þ þ f j ðm; nÞ
curve function while an exponential function is a concave one. To pre- pq pq
cisely capture the risk preference and the evolution trend of user simi- ð4Þ
larity, we propose a custom attenuation function as shown in Eq. (2).
where fjpq(m,n) = 1 if the (m − 1)th value in Bpj is equal to the (n − 1)th
2 value in Bqj, andfjpq(m, n) = 0 otherwise.
f ðhÞ ¼ −α ð2Þ
1 þ ðh=HÞ Once m = n = H + 1, we get the final edit distance between Bpj and
Bqj — editjpq(H + 1, H + 1). Then taSR calculates the invocation similarity
where H denotes the total number of PITs. In this way, we make h/H between up and uq for service sj as follows.
vary from 0 to 1, and α is a tunable parameter adjusted to indicate the
risk preference of service similarity. Fig. 3 plots the function with differ- j
edit pq ðH þ 1; H þ 1Þ
j
ent α values. From the figure, the correlation of inter-user similarity Simpq ¼ 1− ð5Þ
H
changes significantly when α falls below and exceeds 1.
We then estimate the user global similarity at consecutive PITs t1 …
tH using Eq. (3). At last, taSR estimates the user invocation similarity by calculating
the average similarity for cloud services invocated by user up or uq,
H
∑h¼1 f ðhÞ Simhpq that is, SimExp J j
pq = ∑j=1Simpq/Npq, where Npq is the number of cloud ser-
SimGlobal
pq ¼ H
ð3Þ vices invocated by user up or uq. Note that if two users have the same in-
∑h¼1 f ðhÞ vocation experiences for all candidates, we have SimExp pq = 1. For
instance, assume two users up and uq invoke service sj at four consecu-
The user global similarity proposed in this article is a dynamic metric tive PITs t1 .. t4, the collected response-time values (i.e., the QoS values)
that is closely coupled with the attenuation function f (h). α is the coef- are {1.57, 2.31, null, null} and {0.98, null, 1.86, null} for two users, re-
ficient of users' risk preference. A risk-averse user may choose α being spectively. taSR shall transform them to the binary strings as Bpj =
smaller than 1, which has slow attenuation rate and reflects the large {1,1,0, 0} and Bqj = {1, 0,1,0}.
impact of recent PITs; a risk-taking user may choose α being bigger Tables 1 and 2 show how to fill in the distance matrix D [5,5]. The
than 1, which has fast attenuation rate such that the recommendation values in the first row and the first column are calculated by editjpq(m,0)
of cloud services depends less on recent PITs. Meanwhile, a risk neutral = m and editjpq(0,n) = n, respectively, as shown in Table 1. We then fill
user chooses α being 1. We initialize α to 1.0 indicating every user is in other edit distance values in the distance matrix, as shown in Table 2.
neutral at the beginning. In addition to recommending top N services
under the current α, the vendor may supply additional m services
using a smaller α and m services using a large α. m is much smaller
Table 1
than N. We update α dynamically according to the user's choice. Once
The constructed computation matrix.
a user selects the cloud service recommended by a larger α, we adjust
the initial α to a larger one for the next time. Empathy, we adjust α to bpj 1 1 0 0
fit the users' risk preference. bqj 0 1 2 3 4
1 1 / / / /
4.2. User invocation similarity estimation adopting edit distance
0 2 / / / /
To improve the accuracy of user similarity estimation, we next 1 3 / / / /
exploit users' service invocation history to enable additional similar-
0 4 / / / /
ity analysis among different users, similar as those in recent studies
S. Ding et al. / Decision Support Systems 107 (2018) 103–115 107
Table 2 Table 3
The edit distance between up and uq. ACF and PACF of three models.
9 x 10
5 5
4.5 x 10
4.0 8
3.5 7
3.0 6
Numbers
Numbers
2.5 5
2.0 4
1.5 3
1.0 2
0.5 1
0.0 (kBps) 0 (s)
<0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.8 0.8-1.6 1.6-3.2 3.2-6.4 6.4-12.8 >12.8 <0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.8 0.8-1.6 1.6-3.2 3.2-6.4 >6.4
Values of throughput Values of response-time
estimate the model coefficient φε and θξ. Moreover, the Bayesian Informa- where minQlj and maxQlj are the minimum and maximum QoS value of
tion Criterion is utilized to check the model (the parameters ε and ξ). It is ^ l is the normalized QoS value of indicator l of sj in the
indicator l and Q j
an iterative process to find the best model for QoS prediction.
future given PIT.
Based on Table 3, we use the AR(ε) equation when the PACF curve
cuts off in ɛ steps and the ACF curve decays. If the ACF curve cuts off in We then weight the indicators according to the variance as wl ¼ Sl =
PL ^ l of all
ξ steps and the PACF curve decays, we adopt the MA(ξ) to predict the l¼1Sl [34], where Sl is the variance of normalized QoS values Q j
QoS values. Once both of the ACF and PACF decay, we utilize the cloud services in a given PIT. Since users tend to pay more attention to
ARMA(ε, ξ) equation in prediction. QoS indicators that have large difference [34], this method assigns larger
weights to indicators with larger variances. In our future work, we plan to
5.3. Cloud service selection enhance the weight assignment by taking the different preferences from
the individual users.
We recommend cloud services based on the predicted QoS values of We finally integrate the QoS values of different indicators of cloud
the future PIT. Different QoS values may not always be consistent. For P
service sj as Q j ¼ Ll¼1 wl Q lj , where Qj is the aggregated QoS value of sj
example, while we prefer lower response-time values and larger
for the future PIT. We rank the cloud service according to the aggregated
throughput values, one cloud service may have low response-time but
QoS value and recommend the top cloud services.
also low throughput values. To achieve effective service recommenda-
tion, we next formulate the problem as an MCDM (multi-criteria deci-
sion making) [33]. At a given PIT, suppose Qlj (lϵ[1,L], jϵ[1,J]) is the QoS 6. Experiments
value of indicator l of cloud service sj. We first use the widely adopted
extremum method to normalize QoS values. 6.1. Data description
response-time response-time
3.00 5.25
taSR taSR
2.75 UPCC 5.00 UPCC
IPCC IPCC
2.50 AVG 4.75 AVG
WSRec WSRec
2.25 4.50
RMSE
MAE
2.00 4.25
1.75 4.00
1.50 3.75
1.25
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Matrix Density Matrix Density
(a) (b)
throughput throughput
5.00
2.4 4.75
2.2 4.50
2.0 4.25
RMSE
MAE
4.00
1.8
taSR 3.75 taSR
1.6 UPCC UPCC
IPCC 3.50 IPCC
1.4 AVG AVG
3.25
WSRec WSRec
1.2 3.00
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Matrix Density Matrix Density
(c) (d)
Fig. 5. Comparing MAE and RMSE from different approaches.
S. Ding et al. / Decision Support Systems 107 (2018) 103–115 109
response-time throughput
0.63
taSR
0.92
UPCC
0.56 IPCC taSR
AVG 0.88 UPCC
0.49 WSRec IPCC
NDCG 10
NDCG 10
0.84 AVG
0.42 WSRec
0.80
0.35
0.76
0.28
0.72
0.21
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Matrix Density Matrix Density
(a) (b)
response-time throughput
0.70
taSR 0.92
0.63 UPCC
IPCC
0.88
AVG
0.56 WSRec
NDCG 30
NDCG 30
0.84
0.49
0.80
0.42 taSR
0.76 UPCC
0.35 IPCC
0.72 AvG
WSRec
0.28
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Matrix Density Matrix Density
(c) (d)
response-time throughput
0.70 taSR
UPCC 0.92
0.63 IPCC
AVG 0.88
0.56 WSRec
NDCG 50
NDCG 50
0.84
0.49
0.80
taSR
0.42
UPCC
0.76
IPCC
0.35 AVG
0.72 WSRec
0.28
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Matrix Density Matrix Density
(e) (f)
Fig. 6. Comparing NDCG10, NDCG30 and NDCG50 from different approaches.
distributed computers (i.e., users) located in 57 countries. Each computer the experiments. Fig. 4 shows the distribution of response-time and
invokes services (e.g., apps in Tencent Cloud platform) randomly with a throughput of QoS values in the dataset. In the experiments, t64 is treated
time interval of 15 min such that one sequence contains at most 64 as the future PIT so that all of its QoS values are to be predicted.
PITs, lasting for 16 h. Two different QoS indicators, i.e., response-time
(rt) and throughput (tp), are used to represent the user-side personalized 6.2. Evaluation metrics
QoS. In particular, the QoS values in this dataset exhibit instantaneity, as
shown in [38, 39], which makes the dataset an appropriate one in our ex- 6.2.1. Matrix density
periment. We randomly extracted two 120 ∗ 500 ∗ 64 time-aware service- Given a test dataset, we randomly remove a subset of data values to
user matrices (response-time, throughput) from the original dataset for simulate data sparsity, i.e., some QoS values are missing in the real
110 S. Ding et al. / Decision Support Systems 107 (2018) 103–115
response-time response-time
4.8
3.0 taSR
taSR 4.6
Kalman Kalman
2.7
4.4
2.4
RMSE
MAE
4.2
2.1
4.0
1.8
3.8
1.5
3.6
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Matrix Density Matrix Density
(a) (b)
throughput throughput
3.00
taSR 4.8 taSR
2.75
Kalman Kalman
2.50 4.5
2.25 4.2
RMSE
MAE
2.00 3.9
1.75 3.6
1.50 3.3
1.25 3.0
1.00
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Matrix Density Matrix Density
(c) (d)
Fig. 7. Comparing MAE and RMSE from taSR and the Kalman approach.
world. The matrix density is defined as the percentage of available QoS 6.2.3. NDCG
values in the time-aware user-service matrix. As an example, suppose To evaluate the service recommendation, we adopted Normalized
there are 10 users and 5 cloud services in 8 PITs. After removing 241 Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) to assess the ranking accuracy of
QoS values, we have the matrix density being 1 – 241 / (10 ∗ 5 ∗ 8) = the k recommended services, i.e., the top-k candidates. NDCG is a
0.3975. For the dataset used in the experiments, we have the matrix gain-based evaluation metric focusing on the ranking prediction perfor-
density being D = 1 – N / (120 ∗ 500 ∗ 63), where N denotes the total mance [41]. It calculates the performance according to the order of
number of missing QoS values. We vary the matrix density D from corresponding QoS values but not the values themselves. While
0.05 to 0.5 with the step being 0.05. throughput is a benefit-based QoS indicator, response-time is a cost-
based QoS indicator. Therefore, we first normalized them to benefit
6.2.2. MAE and RMSE indicators to obtain the rank of each QoS value. NDCGk is defined as
Given that taSR adopts rating-oriented CF, we used Mean Absolute follows.
Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) to assess the predic-
tion accuracy and to compare different approaches [40]. MAE and RMSE DCGk
are defined as: NDCGk ¼ ; ð11Þ
IDCGk
~ h
∑p; j;h Q hpj −Q pj where DCGk and IDCGk denote the discounted cumulative gain on top-k
MAE ¼ ð9Þ
N ranked services according to the generated recommendation list and
the ideal ranking, respectively. DCGk is computed as follows.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u 2
u ~h
t∑ p; j;h Q h −Qpj pj
RMSE ¼ ð10Þ relk
DCGk ¼ rel1 þ ∑k ; ð12Þ
N log2 k
where Qhpj and Q~ h denote the observed and the predicted QoS values, re- where relk denotes the real QoS values on service sk at position k in the
pj
spectively, for service sj invoked by user up at PIT th. N is the total num- predicted ranking. If the generated recommendation is close to the ideal
ber of addition operations of the numerator, which equals to the total QoS ranking, DCGk approximates IDCGk such that NDCGk is close to 1.
number of missing QoS values that we predicted. Note, MAE and That is, the closer the value is to 1, the better performance the service
RMSE decrease with increasing accuracy of QoS prediction. recommendation approach has.
S. Ding et al. / Decision Support Systems 107 (2018) 103–115 111
response-time throughput
0.8 1.2
taSR taSR
0.7 1.1 Kalman
Kalman
0.6 1.0
0.5 0.9
NDCG 10
NDCG 10
0.4 0.8
0.3 0.7
0.2 0.6
0.1 0.5
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
response-time throughput
0.8 1.2
taSR
0.7 taSR 1.1 Kalman
Kalman
0.6 1.0
0.5 0.9
NDCG 30
0.4
NDCG 30 0.8
0.3 0.7
0.2 0.6
0.1 0.5
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
response-time throughput
0.8 1.2
0.5 0.9
NDCG 50
NDCG 50
0.4 0.8
0.3 0.7
0.2 0.6
0.1 0.5
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
performance comparison [17, 18]. AVG is an approach that fills the user- time, the NDCG values increase when the density increases from 0.05
service matrix with the average of the observed QoS values in the last 3 to 0.5, i.e., when there are more data. The NDCG values of response-
PITs [18]. In the experiments, we first filled in the 63 PITs with four ap- time improve with the increasing numbers of the ranked cloud services,
proaches and our similarity-enhanced CF approach, and then predicted which indicates the robustness and stability of our approach. For
the future QoS values in PIT t64 with the ARIMA model. throughput, taSR is clearly superior to other approaches when the den-
Fig. 5 summarizes the experimental results from different ap- sity varies from 0.05 to 0.2 while the raw NDCG values remain stable
proaches under different matrix density settings. Figs. 5(a) and 5 with further increase of density. Both AVG and taSR generate better pre-
(b) present the comparison on response-time matrices while Figs. diction than UPCC, IPCC and WSRec, indicating that time-aware ap-
5(c) and 5(d) present the comparison on throughput matrices. As proaches achieve better accuracy. Moreover, taSR outperforms AVG
shown in the figure, MAE and RMSE results decrease when the ma- for the comprehensive consideration of the instantaneity except for
trix density varies from 0.05 to 0.5. This is because dense matrices NDCG50 with 0.45 and 0.5 density points. From the results, we con-
contain more useful information than sparse matrices. From the fig- cluded that taSR is effective for both similarity analysis and for the
ure, we found that taSR outperforms all four other approaches on final service recommendation.
both response-time and throughput results, which demonstrates
that, by better capturing the dynamic user similarity, we fill in the 6.3.2. Comparison with the state-of-the-art time-aware approach
missing QoS values of the first 63 PITs more accurately. This leads Next, we studied the prediction of QoS values at PIT t64, i.e., for a fu-
to the better performance when adopting the ARIMA model in rec- ture PIT, after adopting the ARIMA model. We compared taSR with the
ommendation. Except for the value of RMSE in response-time, AVG Kalman approach [17]. Hu et al. adopted Kalman to predict the QoS
and taSR generate better prediction than UPCC, IPCC approaches, in- value for each of nine real-world web services with the full time-
dicating that time-aware approaches achieve better accuracy. More- aware QoS sequences [17]. As a recursive approach, Kalman defines a
over, taSR outperforms AVG for the comprehensive consideration of state vector and a process noise vector according to the ARIMA model,
the instantaneity. and takes the new observation as a feedback. In this paper, we focused
To assess the accuracy of the service recommendation, we compared on the personalized QoS prediction, and compared the performance
different recommendation approaches using the metrics NDCG10, for taSR and Kalman. For the data preprocessing, we randomly removed
NDCG30 and NDCG50. Fig. 6 summarizes the ranking results based re- a subset of data in the first 63 PITs to simulate the data sparsity in the
sponse-time and throughput, respectively. In general, the results from real world, and filled in the missing data with traditional UPCC method
taSR are closer to 1.0 than those from other approaches. For response- for Kalman and with our similarity-enhanced CF method for taSR.
0.92 0.93
0.90 0.92
0.91
0.88
0.90
NDCG 30
NDCG 10
0.86
0.89
0.84 0.88
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
NDCG 50
0.90
0.89
0.88
taSR UPCC
0.87 IPCC AVG
WSRec Kalman
0.86
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Matrix Density
(c)
Fig. 9. Comparing NDCG10, NDCG30 and NDCG50 on cloud service selection.
S. Ding et al. / Decision Support Systems 107 (2018) 103–115 113
Fig. 7 summarizes the MAE and RMSE results from taSR and the Table 5
Kalman approaches. We used the same dataset and matrix density. impact of k in throughput.
taSR and Kalman both predict the future QoS values in the future PIT Through k Matrix density
(t64). From the figure, taSR approach outperforms Kalman approach -put
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45
on both response-time and throughput. This is because the similarity
MAE 2 2.268 1.867 1.743 1.672 1.406
estimation in the Kalman approach only used the QoS values of neigh-
5 2.257 1.843 1.589 1.426 1.287
bor users at a specified PIT, even though the Kalman improves the 10 2.264 1.989 1.722 1.544 1.385
ARIMA model for better stability. 30 2.264 2.056 1.945 1.820 1.632
We then compared the performance of taSR and the Kalman RMSE 2 4.543 4.269 3.819 3.604 3.407
approach in making the optimal service recommendation. Fig. 8 5 4.510 3.931 3.698 3.452 3.323
10 4.468 4.214 3.822 3.578 3.433
summarizes the NDCG10, NDCG30 and NDCG50 results from both ap- 30 4.476 4.295 4.117 4.002 3.759
proaches. From the figure, taSR is better than Kalman for all matrix NDCG10 2 0.897 0.921 0.901 0.873 0.869
densities and different QoS indicators. For response-time, taSR 5 0.918 0.927 0.871 0.882 0.876
achieves better ranking with more data. For throughput, taSR gener- 10 0.924 0.944 0.897 0.903 0.916
30 0.921 0.930 0.890 0.881 0.888
ates good results, i.e., around 0.9, for NDCG10, NDCG30 and NDCG50.
NDCG30 2 0.889 0.894 0.843 0.867 0.856
tsSR achieves not only better stability but also better accuracy in 5 0.910 0.908 0.857 0.870 0.861
throughput than those in response-time for the matrix density 10 0.917 0.927 0.893 0.903 0.909
range that we evaluated. 30 0.914 0.927 0.884 0.869 0.870
Also from the figure, the Kalman approach is less sensitive to the ma- NDCG50 2 0.873 0.857 0.845 0.832 0.841
5 0.889 0.888 0.843 0.856 0.849
trix density as it uses the state transition matrix to predict the missing 10 0.896 0.906 0.876 0.886 0.863
QoS value for the future. In the Kalman approach, the state transition 30 0.893 0.906 0.870 0.854 0.852
matrix is predetermined so that it keeps unchanged across multiple it-
erations during prediction.
Table 5 summarizes the impact of k of throughput. The prediction of [11] M. Deshpande, G. Karypis, Item-based top-n recommendation algorithms, ACM
Trans. Inf. Syst. 22 (1) (2004) 143–177.
QoS values becomes more accurate when k = 5 — we observe smaller [12] Z.B. Zheng, H. Ma, M.R. Lyu, et al., QoS-aware web service recommendation by col-
error of MAE and RMSE, except the RMSE in D = 0.05. When k = 10, laborative filtering, IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 4 (2) (2011) 140–152.
the predicted rank of cloud services matches the real rank better than [13] Y. Hu, Q. Peng, X. Hu, et al., Time aware and data sparsity tolerant web service rec-
ommendation based on improved collaborative filtering, IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 8
other k values for all density values we evaluated. Table 6 summarizes (5) (2015) 782–794.
the impact of k in MCDM recommendation. We found that, for NDCG10, [14] M. Silic, G. Delac, S. Srbljic, Prediction of atomic web services reliability for qos-
NDCG30 and NDCG50, taSR achieves more precise recommendation aware recommendation, IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 8 (3) (2015) 425–438.
[15] Q. Yu, Z. Zheng, H. Wang, Trace norm regularized matrix factorization for service
when k = 5 and the matrix density varies from 0.15 to 0.45. When D recommendation, IEEE International Conference on Web Services 2013,
= 0.05, taSR prefers to choose k = 10 to recommend top 10 or 30 pp. 34–41.
cloud services. [16] L. Qi, X. Xu, W. Dou, et al., Time-aware IoE service recommendation on sparse data,
Mob. Inf. Syst. (2016).
[17] Y. Hu, Q. Peng, X. Hu, et al., Web service recommendation based on time series fore-
7. Conclusion casting and collaborative filtering, IEEE International Conference on Web Services
2015, pp. 233–240.
[18] X. Wang, J. Zhu, Z. Zheng, et al., A spatial-temporal QoS prediction approach for
While service recommendation and selection has become one of the
time-aware web service recommendation, ACM Trans. Web 10 (1) (2016).
most important tasks in cloud computing, it remains a major challenge [19] V.W. Chu, R.K. Wong, F. Chen, et al., Web service recommendations based on time-
to recommend the services that are most appropriate to match users' aware Bayesian networks, IEEE International Congress on Big Data 2015,
pp. 359–366.
computing and service demands. In this paper, we propose taSR, a
[20] E. Borgonovo, V. Cappelli, F. Maccheroni, et al., Risk analysis and decision theory: a
time-aware service recommendation approach that integrates simi- bridge, Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2017).
larity-enhanced CF based QoS prediction and time series analysis. [21] D. Ergu, G. Kou, Questionnaire design improvement and missing item scores es-
taSR first enhanced similarity analysis by integrating user global sim- timation for rapid and efficient decision making, Ann. Oper. Res. 197 (1) (2012)
5–23.
ilarity and invocation similarity. In particular, taSR adopts a time [22] J.W. Payne, J.R. Bettman, E.J. Johnson, Behavioral decision research: a constructive
aware user similarity to describe the dynamic nature of user similar- processing perspective, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 43 (1) (1992) 87–131.
ity. taSR then fills missing QoS values in the past PITs and the current [23] L. Li, L. Zheng, F. Yang, et al., Modeling and broadening temporal user interest in per-
sonalized news recommendation, Expert Syst. Appl. 41 (7) (2014) 3168–3177.
PIT and adopts the ARIMA model to produce better recommendation [24] Y. Pan, D. Wu, D.L. Olson, Online to offline (O2O) service recommendation method
for the future PIT. based on multi-dimensional similarity measurement, Decision Support Systems,
With the fast advances of cloud computing paradigm, there exist a 2017.
[25] S. Jimenez, F.A. Gonzalez, A. Gelbukh, Mathematical properties of soft cardinality:
large amount of user-generated data in the cloud. It has become a enhancing Jaccard, dice and cosine similarity measures with element-wise distance,
major challenge for the research community to effectively exploit such Inf. Sci. 367 (2016) 373–389.
data to improve service recommendation. In this paper, we made the ef- [26] S. Yabushita, A comparative analysis of the Tanimoto index and graph edit distance
for measuring the topological similarity of trees, Appl. Math. Comput. 259 (C)
fort to exploit the structured QoS data. In our future work, we will take (2015) 242–250.
advantage of unstructured data such as user comments, blogs, and dis- [27] J. Abreu, J.R. Rico-Juan, Characterization of contour regularities based on the
cussion posts and adopt text-mining techniques [44] to further improve Levenshtein edit distance, Pattern Recogn. Lett. 32 (10) (2011) 1421–1427.
[28] S.H. Ryu, B. Benatallah, Experts community memory for entity similarity functions
service recommendation and selection process.
recommendation, Inf. Sci. 379 (2017) 338–355.
[29] S. Ding, C.Y. Xia, K.L. Zhou, et al., Decision support for personalized cloud service
Acknowledgements selection through multi-attribute trustworthiness evaluation, PLoS One 9 (6)
(2014).
[30] J.C. Chambers, S.K. Mullick, D.D. Smith, How to choose the right forecasting tech-
The work is partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Tech- nique, Harv. Bus. Rev. 49 (4) (1971) 45–74.
nology of the People's Republic of China under grant 2016YFC0503606, [31] M. Godse, U. Bellur, R. Sonar, Automating QoS based service selection, IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Web Services, IEEE 2010, pp. 534–541.
and fully supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
[32] A. Amin, A. Colman, L. Grunske, An approach to forecasting QoS attributes of web
(Nos. 71571058, 71471055, 91546102, 71690235, and 71490725), and services based on ARIMA and GARCH models, International Conference on Web Ser-
a project funded by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation grant vices, IEEE 2012, pp. 74–81.
no. 2015M570535. [33] H. Ma, Z. Hu, K. Li, et al., Toward trustworthy cloud service selection: a time-aware
approach using interval neutrosophic set, J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 96 (2016)
75–94.
References [34] O. Kempthorne, The correlation between relatives on the supposition of mendelian
inheritance, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 20 (4) (1968) 402.
[1] Z.B. Zheng, Y.L. Zhang, M.R. Lyu, Distributed QoS evaluation for real-world web ser- [35] C. Wu, W. Qiu, X. Wang, et al., Time-aware and sparsity-tolerant QoS prediction
vices, IEEE International Conference on Web Services, IEEE Computer Society 2010, based on collaborative filtering, IEEE International Conference on Web Services,
pp. 83–90. IEEE 2016, pp. 637–640.
[2] D. Geebelen, K. Geebelen, E. Truyen, et al., QoS prediction for web service composi- [36] S. Chen, Y. Fan, W. Tan, et al., Time-aware collaborative Poisson factorization for ser-
tions using kernel-based quantile estimation with online adaptation of the constant vice recommendation, IEEE International Conference on Web Services 2016,
offset, Inf. Sci. 268 (1) (2014) 397–424. pp. 196–203.
[3] K. Su, B. Xiao, B. Liu, et al., TAP: a personalized trust-aware QoS prediction approach [37] X. Wang, J. Zhu, Z. Zheng, et al., A spatial-temporal QoS prediction approach for
for web service recommendation, Knowl.-Based Syst. 115 (2017) 55–65. time-aware web service recommendation, ACM Trans. Web 10 (1) (2016) 7.
[4] H. Wu, K. Yue, C.H. Hsu, et al., Deviation-based neighborhood model for context- [38] Y. Zhang, Z. Zheng, M.R. Lyu, Real-time performance prediction for cloud compo-
aware QoS prediction of cloud and IoT services, Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. nents, IEEE International Symposium on Object/Component/Service-oriented Real-
(2016)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2016.10.015. time Distributed Computing Workshops, IEEE 2012, pp. 106–111.
[5] Y. Hu, Q. Peng, X. Hu, A time-aware and data sparsity tolerant approach for web ser- [39] C. Yu, L. Huang, Time-aware collaborative filtering for QoS-based service recommen-
vice recommendation, IEEE International Conference on Web Services 2014, dation, IEEE International Conference on Web Services, IEEE Computer Society 2014,
pp. 33–40. pp. 265–272.
[6] Z. Ye, S.K. Mistry, A. Bouguettaya, et al., Long-term QoS-aware cloud service compo- [40] J. Abreu, J.R. Rico-Juan, Characterization of contour regularities based on the
sition using multivariate time series analysis, IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 9 (3) (2016) Levenshtein edit distance, Pattern Recogn. Lett. 32 (10) (2011) 1421–1427.
382–393. [41] K. Rvelin, J. Kek, Inen, cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques, ACM Trans.
[7] C.F. Tsai, C. Hung, Cluster ensembles in collaborative filtering recommendation, Inf. Syst. 20 (4) (2002) 422–446.
Appl. Soft Comput. 12 (4) (2012) 1417–1425. [42] J.S. Breese, D. Heckerman, C. Kadie, Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for
[8] Y.M. Afify, I.F. Moawad, N.L. Badr, et al., Enhanced similarity measure for personal- collaborative filtering, Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelli-
ized cloud services recommendation, Concurrency & Computation Practice & Expe- gence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc 1998, pp. 43–52.
rience, 29, 2017. [43] B. Sarwar, G. Karypis, J. Konstan, et al., Item-based collaborative filtering recommen-
[9] C. Yin, J. Wang, J.H. Park, An improved recommendation algorithm for big data cloud dation algorithms, International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM 2001,
service based on the Trust in Sociology, Neurocomputing (2017). pp. 285–295.
[10] S. Roy, R. Bose, D. Sarddar, A novel replica placement strategy using binary item-to- [44] L. Flory, K.M. Bryson, M. Thomas, A new web personalization decision-support arti-
item collaborative filtering for efficient voronoi-based cloud-oriented content deliv- fact for utility-sensitive customer review analysis, Decis. Support. Syst. (2016)
ery network, Comput. Eng. Appl. IEEE (2015) 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.11.003.
S. Ding et al. / Decision Support Systems 107 (2018) 103–115 115
Shuai Ding is an associate professor at School of Management, Hefei University of Tech- Youtao Zhang is an associate professor of Computer Science at the University of Pitts-
nology, China. He got his PhD from Hefei University of Technology. burgh. He received the Ph.D. degree in computer science from the University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, USA, in 2002, and the B.S. and M.E. degrees from Nanjing University, Nanjing,
Yeqing Li is a PhD candidate at School of Management, Hefei University of Technology, China, in 1993 and 1996, respectively. Dr. Zhang has authored over 30 journal articles and
China. more than 70 conference presentations in cloud computing, software engineering, mem-
ory systems and data intensive computing. Dr. Zhang was the recipient of the U.S. National
Desheng Wu is the Distinguished professor at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Science Foundation Career Award in 2005, the Distinguished Paper Award of International
Professor of Stockholm University. His research interests focus on enterprise risk manage- Conference on Software Engineering 2003, and the Best Paper Award of International
ment in operations, performance evaluation in financial industry, and decision sciences. Symposium on Low Power Electronics and Design 2013. He is a member of ACM and IEEE.
He has published more than 100 papers in refereed journals such as Production and Oper-
ations Management, Decision Support Systems, Decision Sciences, Risk Analysis, IEEE
Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics etc. He is the editor of Springer book series
titled “Computational Risk Management”. He has served as associate editors/guest editors
in such journals as IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, Annals of Opera-
tions Research, Computers and Operations Research, International Journal of Production
Economics, Omega etc. He is a Senior Editor at Decision Support Systems.