CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Access Control and TrustCloud Data Security SolutionsCloud Computing and Resource Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Trust Game Model of Service Cooperation in Cloud Computing

Sun, PanJun·2021·Journal of Network and Computer Applications
DOI 10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102864
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102864

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • IoT devices often have higher requirements for power consumption and delay; therefore, the performance and applicability of these schemes also need to be improved.

    “However, IoT devices often have higher requirements for power consumption and delay; therefore, the performance and applicability of these schemes also need to be improved [134].”

    From A Survey of IoT Privacy Security: Architecture, Technology, Challenges, and Trends (2024) · cites this paper as [134]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Abdel Wahab, 2018, Towards trustworthy multi-cloud services communities: a trust-based hedonic coalitional game, IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., 11
  2. Andiraja, 2016, Optimal control feedback Nash in the scalar infinite non-cooperative dynamic game with discount factor, Global J. Pure Appl. Math., 12, 3463
  3. Ardagna, 2017, Generalized Nash equilibria for the service provisioning problem in multi-cloud systems, IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., 10, 10.1109/TSC.2015.2477836 · DOI
  4. Cai, 2018, Toward multiplayer cooperative cloud gaming, IEEE Cloud Comput., 10.1109/MCC.2018.326105129 · DOI
  5. Fuller, 2001, An analytic approach for obtaining maximal entropy OWA operator weights, Fuzzy Set Syst., 124, 53, 10.1016/S0165-0114(01)00007-0 · DOI
  6. George, 2019, Cloud federations: economics, games and benefits, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 27
  7. Helil, 2017, Non-zero-sum cooperative access control game model with user trust and permission risk, Appl. Math. Comput., 299
  8. Hu, 2018, Optimal network defense strategy selection based on incomplete Information Evolutionary Game, IEEE Access, 6
  9. Huang, 2018, Competitions among service providers in cloud computing: a new economic model, IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag., 15, 10.1109/TNSM.2018.2825358 · DOI
  10. Jiang, 2018, Community structured evolutionary game for privacy protection in social networks, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., 13, 574, 10.1109/TIFS.2017.2758756 · DOI
  11. Kumar, 2018, Bayesian cooperative coalition game as a service for RFID-based secure QoS management in mobile cloud, IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput., 6
  12. Li, 2018, Evolutionary trust scheme of certificate game in mobile cloud Computing, Soft Comput, 22, 2245, 10.1007/s00500-017-2486-x · DOI
  13. Li, 2017, A novel QoS prediction approach for cloud services using bayesian network model, IEEE Access, 1391
  14. Liang, 2018, vol. 6
  15. Mashayekhy, 2019, A trust-aware mechanism for cloud federation formation, IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput.
  16. Muhammad, 2017, A game theory-based trust model for Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANETs), Comput. Network., 121, 152, 10.1016/j.comnet.2017.04.024 · DOI
  17. Neumann, 2007, vol. 21, 2
  18. Pawlick, 2019, iSTRICT: an interdependent strategic trust mechanism for the cloud-enabled internet of controlled things, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur., 14, 10.1109/TIFS.2018.2883272 · DOI
  19. Benay Kumar Ray, Avirup Saha, Sunirmal Khatua, Sarbani Roy. Quality and profit assured trusted cloud federation formation: game theory based approach. DOI 10.1109/TSC.2018.2833854, IEEE Transactions on Services Computing. · DOI
  20. Siadat, 2017, Identifying fake feedback in cloud trust management systems using feedback evaluation component and Bayesian game model, J. Supercomput., 73, 2682, 10.1007/s11227-016-1950-1 · DOI
  21. Sun, 2019, Privacy protection and data security in cloud computing: a survey, challenges, and solutions, IEEE Access, 7, 147420, 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2946185 · DOI
  22. Yang, 2018, Evolution model and simulation of logistics outsourcing for manufacturing enterprises based on multi-agent modeling, Cluster Comput.
  23. Yang, 2018, Analysis of intellectual property cooperation behavior and its simulation under two types of scenarios using evolutionary game theory, Comput. Ind. Eng., 125, 739, 10.1016/j.cie.2018.02.040 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sun, P.
ORCID
Sun, PanJun
Venue
Journal of Network and Computer Applications
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
173
Pages
102864
ISSN
1084-8045 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102864
OpenAlex
W3092835980
Cited by
12
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2021-01-15)
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Journal of Network and Computer Applications (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
Keywords
trust prediction, tripartite game model, Nash equilibrium, mixed strategy equilibrium, cloud service providers, cloud security

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review