4.7 Article

On Link Stability Metric and Fuzzy Quantification for Service Selection in Mobile Vehicular Cloud

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2019.2911860

关键词

Cloud computing; Stability analysis; Measurement; Vehicular ad hoc networks; Linguistics; Aggregates; Vehicle dynamics; Mobile vehicular cloud; service selection; fuzzy quantified propositions; user preferences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vehicular cloud (VC) is a promising environment, where intelligent transport applications can be developed relying on mobile vehicles, which can be both cloud users and cloud service providers. It enables vehicles that have sufficient resources to act as mobile cloud servers by offering a variety of services to users' vehicles. In this context, to consume a cloud service on the move, a user vehicle must first identify the most stable vehicles, relative to his/her motion, which are able to provide the service, and then select the most suitable service according to his/her preferences, while both provider vehicles and their services are described by attributes or quality constraints. Therefore, we introduce a generic relative motion model, as a generic link stability metric, upon which vehicles can form a stable cloud, and we address the VC service selection by using linguistic quantifiers and fuzzy quantified propositions, to define our flexible quantified service selection (FQSS) scheme, which aggregates efficiently both user preferences and service constraints and ranks service providers from the most to the least satisfactory. To break ties among the top-ranked service providers, we make use of our parameters for ranking refinement, called least satisfactory proportion (lsp) and greatest satisfactory proportion (gsp). The simulation results show that our link stability achieves generic motion, by modeling a wider range of vehicle motion types, and our FQSS scheme allows a good successful service consumption rate while reducing latency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据