4.7 Article

A Reinforcement Learning Method for Constraint-Satisfied Services Composition

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SERVICES COMPUTING
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 786-800

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TSC.2017.2727050

关键词

Quality of service; Internet; Time factors; Optimization; Markov processes; Uncertainty; Learning (artificial intelligence); Web service composition; constraint-satisfied; uncertainty of service behaviors; undetermined QoS; Markov decision process (MDP); Q-learning algorithm

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61673249,61273291]
  2. Shan xi Scholar ship Council of China [2016-004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With increasing adoption and presence of Web services, service composition becomes an effective way to construct software applications. Composite services need to satisfy both the functional and the non-functional requirements. Traditional methods usually assume that the quality of service (QoS) and the behaviors of services are deterministic, and they execute the composite service after all the component services are selected. It is difficult to guarantee the satisfaction of user constraints and the successful execution of the composite service. This paper models the constraint-satisfied service composition (CSSC) problem as a Markov decision process (MDP), namely CSSC-MDP, and designs a Q-learning algorithm to solve the model. CSSC-MDP takes the uncertainty of QoS and service behavior into account, and selects a component service after the execution of previous services. Thus, CSSC-MDP can select the globally optimal service based on the constraints which need the following services to satisfy. In the case of selected service failure, CSSC-MDP can timely provide the optimal alternative service. Simulation experiments show that the proposed method can successfully solve the CSSC problem of different sizes. Comparing with three representative methods, CSSC-MDP has obvious advantages, especially in terms of the success rate of service composition.

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