IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 7, NO.
6, JUNE 2020
A Reliable Trust Computing Mechanism Based
on Multisource Feedback and Fog Computing
in Social Sensor Cloud
Junbin Liang , Min Zhang , and Victor C. M. Leung , Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—Social sensor cloud (SSC) is combined with social
network, wireless sensor network, cloud computing, and fog com-
puting, which is currently a new type of Internet of Things (IoT).
In order to provide a convenient, open, and highly reliable SSC
services, the devices of fog computing are distributed at the edge
of cloud computing. The devices of fog computing can indepen-
dently process and store data, and feedback more quickly in
SSC. The sensing layer of SSC faces different types of physi-
cal attacks and communication attacks, such as message forgery,
message tampering, reply attacks, hidden data attacks, etc., lead
to the lack of trust between social sensors and cloud data cen-
ters in SSC. Therefore, the trust evaluation between the sensing
layer and the network layer is necessary. However, computing
the reliability of the social sensor data in cloud data centers will
generate a large amount of trust computing overhead, commu-
nication overhead, and communication delay, which hinder the
widespread application of SSC services. To combat this issue,
a reliable trust computing mechanism (RTCM) based on mul-
tisource feedback and fog computing fusion is proposed. First,
a new metric is designed for the trust of social sensor nodes,
and multisource feedback trust value collection is performed at
the sensing layer to improve the detection of malicious feed-
back nodes. Second, the trust feedback information of the sensing
layer is collected by the devices of fog computing, and the rec-
ommendation trust calculation is performed, which reduces the
communication delay and computing overhead. Third, a fusion
algorithm is designed to aggregate different types of feedback
trust values, which overcomes the limitation of trust weights in
artificial weighting and subjective weighting in traditional trust
mechanisms. Theoretical analyses and simulation results show
that the proposed trust computing mechanism has better com-
putational efficiency and higher reliability compared with existing
methods.
Manuscript received November 24, 2019; revised February 18, 2020;
accepted March 2, 2020. Date of publication March 16, 2020; date of
current version June 12, 2020. This work was supported in part by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61562005;
in part by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province under
Grant 2019GXNSFAA185042, Grant 2018GXNSFBA281169, and Grant
2018JJA170215; in part by the Guangxi Key Research and Development Plan
Project under Grant Guike AB19259006; and in part by the Thousands of
Young and Middle-Aged Backbone Teachers Training Program for Guangxi
Higher Education [Education Department of Guangxi (2017)] under Grant 49.
(Corresponding author: Min Zhang.)
Junbin Liang and Min Zhang are with the Guangxi Key Laboratory of
Multimedia Communications and Network Technology, School of Computer
and Electronics Information, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
(e-mail: liangjb@gxu.edu.cn; 15388951803@163.com).
Victor C. M. Leung is with the College of Computer Science and Software
Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China, and also with
the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada (e-mail: vleung@ece.ubc.ca).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JIOT.2020.2981005
2327-4662 
c 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5481
Index Terms—Feedback trust, fog computing, social sensor
cloud (SSC), trust computing.
I. I NTRODUCTION
N RECENT years, the social sensor cloud (SSC) [1]–[6]
I has appeared as a new type of sensor cloud system, grad-
ually generated and applied with the integration of wireless
sensor network, social network, cloud computing technolo-
gies, and fog computing technologies, which has also become
a new hotpot of future research direction in the field of Internet
of Things (IoT). The SSC computes and stores data from the
social sensors by the cloud computing technology, realizes the
integration of the virtual social network information world and
the real physical world, and provides the users with conve-
nient, economical, and highly reliable SSC services. The SSC
covers a wide range of various fields, such as online medi-
cal health [7], disaster detection [8], traffic surveillance [9],
military surveillance [10], etc.
Fog computing is distributed between the sensing layer and
the network layer, supporting the SSC to provide the con-
venient and open SSC services. Actually, fog computing is
a new type of edge computing network architecture [11],
distributed on social sensing devices and systems to collect
multisource feedback, and is responsible for a part of tasks
in computing, thereby extends cloud computing to the edge
of the grid [12], multisource feedback includes the feedback
between social sensor nodes, and the feedback between sen-
sor nodes and fog devices (FDs). In addition, fog computing
is a scalable and distributed computing paradigm, enabling
timely deployment based on multisource feedback, avoiding
network congestion and protecting user privacy effectively,
enabling timely deployment based on service requests from
the sensing layer.
However, SSC has a similarity as the social evolution of
online social networks. With social factors, SSC is different
from the traditional wireless sensor network. In the process
of collecting social data, there are several difficulties and trust
problems as follows.
1) The social sensor data are in large amount [13], and
its structure type is complex [14], social sensors have
limited storage capacity and heterogeneity devices are
difficult to be compatible [15].
5482
2) Based on the open social cloud environment, there are
a large number of social sensors that may refuse to for-
ward messages [16] or propagate a large number of false
messages [17], wasting network transmission resources.
3) Social sensors have random mobility, their perceived
data are prone to failure and cannot assess data
authenticity [18], resulting in unnecessary computational
overhead and unreliable SSC services.
Malicious service providers provide untrustworthy
services [19]. For example, a large number of social users
posted and disseminated false messages on social media
sites during a major news event. First, false messages have
a negative influence in the respect of social communica-
tion; second, the limited energy of the node is wasted and
the service provided is unreliable from the perspective of
SSC [20]. In the mobile ad hoc networks, untrusted nodes
may adversely affect the quality and reliability of the sensor
data, thereby harm the security of the service [31]. Trust
and reputation systems play an important role in decision
making on the Internet [30]. Therefore, it is very important
to analyze and detect the SSC data and progress the relia-
bility of service. In this article, a reliable trust computing
mechanism (RTCM) based on multisource feedback and fog
computing in SSC is proposed, combining with the trust
computing of feedback information in SSC, and consider-
ing the rapidity, real time, validity, and accuracy of SSC
service.
First, a fog-based SSC highly reliable trust computing archi-
tecture is established, in order to improve the security and
quality of SSC service better. SSC consists of cloud data cen-
ters, FDs, and sensors. The data collected by social sensors
are uploaded to the fog layer for preliminary processing and
then collected through the cloud data centers. Data processing
and storage based on the cloud computing platform, to pro-
vide high-reliability and low-latency sensor cloud services for
different social users.
Second, the multisource feedback trust computing is per-
formed between the sensing layer and the fog layer and does
not need to be uploaded to the cloud data centers, in order to
reduce the overhead of trust computing. Social sensor nodes
of the sensing layer and devices of the fog layer feedback trust
value and trust computing is carried out on the fog platform.
Therefore, real-time validity and low overhead of the proposed
trust mechanism are guaranteed, which is combined with fog
computing.
In addition, a new trust algorithm that aggregates differ-
ent types of feedback is proposed by aggregating feedback
trust values of different devices, since it is necessary to estab-
lish a trust computing mechanism with high-reliability SSC
by setting new trust metrics based on feedback from different
nodes and servers, we propose a trust computing algorithm that
aggregates different types of feedback trust values from dif-
ferent devices, the target node, and the intermediate node, and
matrices are established to perform multidimensional aggrega-
tion on the trust value, and weights according to different types
of feedback values to aggregate the trust value of the social
sensor node, then the trust value of the social sensor node
is evaluated. The accuracy of data transmission by measuring
Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 7, NO. 6, JUNE 2020
security and Quality of Service (QoS) of SSC services. The
main contributions of this article are as follows.
1) A fog-based SSC high-reliability trust computing archi-
tecture is established, enabling the social sensor data
to be effectively layered and processed in three stages
of collection, transmission, and calculation, which
improves the efficiency of trust computing and reduced
communication latency and network load.
2) A lightweight trust computing mechanism combined
with multisource feedback and fog computing is
designed. The trust computing is completed by the
sensing layer and the fog layer. Social sensors of the
sensing layer are monitored by FD of the fog comput-
ing in real time, which meets the requirements of low
latency. FD undertakes part of the task of trust comput-
ing and storage in the cloud data center and reduces the
computational overhead and transmission cost of cloud
computing.
3) A new trust algorithm that aggregates different types of
feedback is proposed. By weighting the trust values of
different types of feedback, weight distribution is per-
formed according to different trust factors, which over-
comes the limitation of weight assignment of traditional
trust schemes.
The organization of this article is as follows. Section I
introduces the trust computing scheme existing in SSC, and
Section II gives an overview of related work about trust mech-
anisms. Section III describes the SSC architecture with trust
mechanism and Section IV gives the trust analysis the fog
computing of the SSC architecture. Based on the trust analy-
sis of fog computing, Section V gives a detailed description
of RTCM based on multisource feedback and fog computing.
Section VI analyzes the theory and the reliability of RTCM.
Section VII summarizes this article and proposes the direction
of future research.
II. R ELATED W ORK
Social sensing cloud service applications have been widely
used, more researchers are paying attention to the social
security cloud-related security issues, and propose different
solutions based on the trust mechanism. In order to research
SSC security deeply, this section will provide insight into the
latest research advances in this area.
A. Trust Based on Social Evolution
Chang et al. studied the user trust in social network services
(SNSs), designed an improved model, conducted quantita-
tive empirical research, explored impacts of social influence,
privacy issues, and perceived risks from the user groups in
Facebook and LinkedIn. However, the study has certain lim-
itations, SNS includes many types, and each has different
user group characteristics [32]. Lee et al. [25] proposed an
approach to measure the trust of IoT social media environ-
ment service based on ontology. A trust ontology method
based on the social content semantic library is constructed,
extended, and personalized [26], by establishing novel trust, it
provides reliable trust metrics for the users and the trust-aware
LIANG et al.: RELIABLE TRUST COMPUTING MECHANISM BASED ON MULTISOURCE FEEDBACK AND FOG COMPUTING IN SOCIAL SENSOR CLOUD
services with considering the dynamic trust of the social
media. However, the approach only examines simple trust
metrics from users to social content, without including the
effectiveness and usability in real-world trust-aware environ-
ments.
Considering the influence of social factors in SSC,
Guler et al. [21] proposed the optimal communication strategy
scheme based on the principle of the homophily, which is with
positive and negative trust relationships in the social sensor
network. The authors integrate social awareness into network
communication under the influence-centered constraints [22].
The social-aware sensors collect and process the data avail-
able in the social media, and predict the type of friendship
or hostile relationship of social sensors through links. The
analysis shows that the scheme reduces the end-to-end delay
and propagation costs in social communication effectively.
However, the scheme only verifies the influence of different
nodes in the network through the simple summation and aver-
aging method of binary evaluation, neither involves the trust
problems of different levels in a large system such as SSC nor
involves the trust computing overhead and communication cost
problems.
B. Trust Combined With Fog Computing
Pahl et al. [23] proposed an architecture pattern in the for-
mat of a state machine that describes the basic processing
of the orchestration activities, supported by a blockchain to
enable trusted orchestration management (TOM). The archi-
tecture coordinates the communication between the sensors
and the cloud services by introducing the fog and edge
architecture and processes the data from sensors and clouds.
Li et al. [24] used the blockchain technology to solve the secu-
rity problems of the edge device, and analyzed the identity of
device entity, sensor data source, and data transaction pro-
cessing, to prevent this information from being tampered. The
experimental results show that the blockchain-based solution
can map trust to the IoT edge cloud architecture while con-
sidering the robustness and robustness of trust. However, the
feasibility while storing the sensor data in a large amount in
the blockchain is not considered.
In order to ensure the security of SSC data storage,
Zhang et al. [27] studied the hidden data attacks in sensor
clouds, and designed a detection system based on fog comput-
ing and trust evaluation mechanism. First, the trust evaluation
mechanism composes of three layers: 1) the direct trust layer in
WSN; 2) the preliminary decision layer of the underlying FD;
and 3) the data analysis layer based on the fog platform. The
main functions of the underlying FD include collecting sensor
trust value and topology information, making major decisions,
and passing messages from the fog platform. A hierarchi-
cal trust evaluation mechanism can resist more attacks with
lower network resource consumption costs. Second, the author
defines three types of scenarios (redundant data, parametric
curve features, and data validation) for verification, and gives
three detection schemes. The experimental results show that
the proposed mechanism has a certain reliability in detecting
hidden data attacks.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5483
Fig. 1. Reliable trust computing architecture of SSC based on multisource
feedback and fog computing.
C. Trust Based on Edge Device Feedback
Due to the characteristics of social evolution in SSC,
using the feedback trust computing in the social network
can further improve the reliability of the trust mechanism.
Combined with the idea of edge computing, Yuan and Li [28]
proposed a reliable and lightweight trust mechanism of multi-
source feedback information fusion based on IoT edge devices.
First, the lightweight trust evaluation mechanism is used to
coordinate the IoT edge devices, and the global trust cal-
culation is performed through multisource feedback, which
reduces the overhead of trust computing; second, a feedback
information fusion algorithm based on objective information
entropy theory is proposed, which overcomes the shortcomings
in traditional methods. The experimental results show that the
mechanism has better computational efficiency and reliability.
In summary, enhancing trust is undoubtedly a reliable mea-
sure to ensure the security of SSC services. However, most
of the current research programs only focus on social fac-
tors affecting communication, or subjective methods are used
to assign weights to trust decision factors, which reflects the
lack of adaptability to global trust aggregation computing. On
the other hand, these schemes do not take into account the
large scale in SSC, which cannot be applied to solve a large
number of trust computing, the reliability of trust computing is
reduced. Therefore, it is necessary to design a low-overhead,
high-reliability trust mechanism for SSC.
III. A RCHITECTURE OF SSC W ITH T RUST M ECHANISM
In this section, we first present the fog-based SSC architec-
ture, second, we also analyze the function of each layer in the
architecture.
As shown in Fig. 1, RCTM based on multisource feedback
and fog computing in SSC, in which fog computing under-
takes a part of data analysis and management tasks from the
cloud data center, and bring kinds of potential advantages. For
example, the devices of fog computing provide a wide range of
services for a large number of heterogeneous sensors and pro-
cess the sensor data rapidly, thereby reducing network latency
5484
and responding faster to service requests from the sensing
layer, based on huge data resources of cloud computing, fog
computing, and cloud data center work in an integrated man-
ner to solve the resource and QoS requirements of large-scale
IoT systems.
The SSC reliable trust computing architecture based on mul-
tisource feedback and fog computing is divided into three
layers: 1) the network layer; 2) the fog layer; and 3) the sensing
layer. Their composition and function are as follows.
1) The sensing layer is composed of social sensors.
The social sensors transmit data by WIFI, 433 MHZ,
ZigBee (2.4G), and other technologies, and communi-
cate through wireless communication base stations or
gateways. Before completing data interaction, the social
sensors send request messages to FDs for ensuring the
reliability of social sensors being interacted with.
2) The fog layer consisting of FDs and fog platforms.
Due to the open social sensor network, there may exist
some malicious social sensors, which generate malicious
feedback, resulting in unreliable trust computing of the
fog layer. Therefore, we extend the traditional feed-
back mechanism. The FDs are deployed to monitor the
interaction behavior of the social sensors and summa-
rize feedback of the social sensors. The fog platforms
initially analyze the feedbacks of the FD to the social
sensors, and send the analysis result to the cloud data
center. Moreover, RCTM proposed in this article is dif-
ferent from the traditional feedback mechanisms, the
trust aggregation computing based on multisource feed-
back information through FD instead of the cloud data
center, which not only reduces the transmission cost and
delay but also improves the computing efficiency and
reliability.
3) The network layer is supported by cloud computing.
Since the cloud data center contains central servers that
manage databases, and cloud computing provides the
infrastructure, platform, and software services for the
large-scale IoT systems, enabling various industries and
organizations to obtain more security data and access
to information and interfaces easier. Consequently, we
assume that the cloud data center is always trustworthy.
IV. T RUST A NALYSIS BASED ON F OG C OMPUTING IN SSC
In the proposed RTCM combining multisource feedback and
fog computing, the trust computing is completely completed
by the fog layer and the sensing layer, and there is no demand
to upload tasks to the central server of the cloud.
At the sensing layer, the social sensors generate more feed-
back. The feedback is uploaded to the fog layer, collected
by the FD, and analyzed and managed by the fog platform,
to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of trust comput-
ing all the feedback information is uploaded to the cloud data
center for processing and storage by the central server, the
response time of the trust service request will be extended,
the data transmission cost will also increase, then SSC will
face extreme challenges in the network load and reliability.
Therefore, trust computing through the sensing layer and the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 7, NO. 6, JUNE 2020
fog layer can shorten the response time effectively, reduce the
delay by effective communication, and save the network data
transmission cost.
In SSC, considering the interaction between different social
sensors, social sensors, and FDs, we establish a trust mecha-
nism based on the feedback of multiple social sensors on FDs
systematically.
The trust feedback involves two sets of entities. The first
is the set of social sensors (S = {s1 , s2 , . . . , si , . . . , sn }), i
represents the ID of the social sensor, and n represents the
total number of social sensors, the second is the set of FD
(D = {dl , d2 , . . . , dw , . . . , dm }), w represents the ID of the
FD, and m represents the total number of FDs. There are two
basic trust feedback relationships between the two entities: the
first one is the feedback relationship between social sensors,
which is the basic trust relationship when the social sensors
communicate, the second one is the feedback relationship of
FDs to social sensors, it is a special indirect trust relationship
in this article, and it is also a key factor to reduce the sensor
malicious feedback, which is extremely important for RTCM.
Next, with reference to the methods in [27] and [28], we
present the definition of the trust relationship involved in this
article.
1) Definition 1 (S-to-S Direct Trust): S-to-S direct trust
refers to the ability value of the social sensor node
to complete the task, and the record of trust degree is
obtained through the direct interaction history between
the two devices.
2) Definition 2 (D-to-S Recommendation Trust): D-to-S
recommendation trust is the trust value objectively cal-
culated by the fog platform for the social sensors. The
social sensor feeds its direct trust to other sensors to
the FD, and the FD is assembled. Different trust values
are transmitted to the fog platform for calculation, and
the fog platform generates recommendation trust for the
social sensors.
3) Definition 3 (S-to-S Global Trust): S-to-S global trust
refers to the quantitative value of the ability of the social
sensor to request the service object to complete the task.
The global trust is computational integrated based on
S-to-S direct trust and D-to-S recommendation trust.
According to Definitions 1–3, S-to-S global trust is the result
of aggregation computing by multiple trust factors. Since tradi-
tional schemes only consider the subjective S-to-S direct trust,
the credibility of the sensor cannot be correctly assessed when
malicious attacks occur, resulting in the risk of data leakage.
In order to solve this problem, RCTM involves direct trust
and recommendation trust and involves the social evolution
of social sensors. We use the objective trust method to com-
pute integrated trust between the sensors and overcome the
limitations of traditional trust mechanisms.
V. M ULTISOURCE F EEDBACK AND T RUST C OMPUTING
A. Definition of Trust Computing
As shown in Fig. 2, the social sensing layer generates direct
trust, and the direct trust are fed back to the fog layer. The
fog layer generates recommendation trust for the sensing layer
LIANG et al.: RELIABLE TRUST COMPUTING MECHANISM BASED ON MULTISOURCE FEEDBACK AND FOG COMPUTING IN SOCIAL SENSOR CLOUD 5485

ωm represents the weighting factor of the ser-

 attrm , and meets the conditions of
vice attribute
0 ≤ ωm ≤ 1, M m=1 ωm = 1.

B. S-to-S Direct Trust

The S-to-S direct trust computing is obtained from the
records of past interactions of different social sensors directly
and does not need to be requested from a third sensor. Each
interaction between the social sensors generates S-to-S direct
trust. In wireless sensor networks, different types of evidence
can be collected, such as packet success rate, routing success
rate (interactive frequency), forwarding delay, data correctness
rate, etc. Considering the social factors of social sensors, the
social sensor proposes that the object of the service request
Fig. 2. Trust calculation based on multisource feedback and fog computing.
service has its own personality preference. Here, we use the
service quality rating as a factor of trust calculation, and the
personality preference between the social sensors and different
through computational fusion. For example, FD is responsible objects as weight.
for monitoring the service behavior of the social sensor. The Before the service provider sj receives the service request,
social sensor periodically feedbacks direct trust to FD. The FD its own service quality evaluation factor is
calculates the recommendation trust between different sensors    M
sj ,t
and global trust. If the social sensor si wants to obtain the SG Qself,t
sj = Q s j , t = ωm qattr m
. (1)
trust value of sj , then si sends a request to the FD, and the FD m=1
feeds back the result to si . After an interaction, according to the service attribute, the
First, we define specific attributes and parameters of the QoS factor obtained by the social sensor si (si ∈ S) that issues
relevant trust calculation. the service request to the service provider sj (sj ∈ S) is
1) Set of Service Attributes: A set of service attributes
represent a collection of quality of interaction   M
s ,s
between social sensors. Expressed with A T T R = Qtsi ,sj = Q si , sj , t = ωm qmi j . (2)
{attr1 , attr2 , . . . , attrm }, attrm represents the m attribute m=1
that affects the trust rating. There are many factors The difference between the service provider sj ’s own QoS
affecting the QoS. In this article, we use the packet size, rating factor and the QoS rating factor obtained by the social
forwarding delay, and route success rate as the attributes sensor si that issued the service request is
affecting the quality service. According to the weights  
 t self,t 
of different attributes, the normalized method is used to Q(s )
Q si ,sj
− Q sj

DQ sj ,s = . (3)
process each attribute value from 0 to 1. ( i j) t
Qsi ,sj
2) Factor of Self-Service Quality Rating: The factor rep-
resents the value of each service quality that a social Q(s )
If DQ(sji ,sj ) exceeds a certain threshold, it can be considered
sensor claims to other social sensors within a cer- that the service provided by the social sensor sj is unreliable
tain period of time (t), it is expressed as, Qs,t ATTR = and its trust value is lowered. The trust value is expressed as
sj ,t sj ,t sj ,t sj ,t
{qattr , qattr2 , . . . , qattrm }, 0 ≤ q attrm ≤ 1, indicates the ⎧ Q(sj )
1
⎪
⎪ 1, 0 ≤ DQ(si ,sj ) ≤ ς1
QoS attribute value m of service provider sj . We assume ⎪
that the social sensor can update its own quality rating   ⎨
Q(s )
Vk si , sj = 0.5, ς1 ≤ DQ sj ,s ≤ ς2 (4)
factor in time according to its service performance and ⎪
⎪ ( i j)
feedback from the service requester each time the task ⎪
⎩ 0, ς ≤ D ( j ) ≤ 1
Q s
2 Q(si ,sj )
is completed.
3) Factor of User’s Quality Rating: The QoS attribute value 0 ≤ ς1 ≤ ς2 ≤ 1, Vk (si , sj ) represents the QoS trust rating
obtained by the service provider’s social sensor si (si ∈ S) obtained by the social sensor si after social sensor si and sj
for the service provider si (si ∈ S) after each interaction, interact for the kth time.
si ,sj si ,sj si ,sj si ,sj
defined as QATTR = {qattr 1
, qattr 2
, . . . , qattr m
}, 0 ≤ According to (1)–(3), the direct trust value of the social
si ,sj
qattrm ≤ 1 indicates the evaluation value of the service sensor si to sj is expressed as SDk (si , sj ), and calculated as
provider si QoS attribute m for the provider sj after an follows:
interaction.  
SDk si , sj
4) Social Sensor Personality Preferences: When social sen-     
sors choose different objects to interact, they have σ Vk si ,sj ×ck si , sj , k = 1   
=
their own preferences for the weight of different ser- δSDk−1 si , sj + σ (1 − δ)Vk si , sj × ck si , sj , k ≥ 2.
vice attributes, expressed by ω = {ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωM }, (5)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5486 IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 7, NO. 6, JUNE 2020

μ is the number of successful interactions between the Algorithm 1: Recommended Trust Algorithm Feed Back
two sensors si and sj , and v is the total number of inter- by FD
actions. δ is defined as the historical factor, indicating the Input : the normalized matrix fdw →sj (t)
weight of the direct trust value when the interaction is rel- Output: DB(si , sj )(t)
ative to the historical interaction, δ(0 ≤ δ ≤ 1). Ck (si , sj ) 1 Begin
2 for i= 1 to n do
indicates the correct rate of data transmission during this 3 for j= 1 to n do
interaction. 4 According to the definition of trust matrix, calculate trust
value of each data in fdw →sj (t) ;
5 SD(si ,sj ) (t) = δSDk−1 (si , sj ) + σ (1 − δ)Vk (si , sj ) × ck (si , sj );
C. D-to-S Recommended Trust 6 if i = j then
7 set SD(si ,sj ) (t) = 0 ;
In a certain social sensing area, we assume that there are
8 end
n social sensors (S = {S1 , S2 , . . . , Si . . . , Sn }) communicating 9 end
with the FD, and the FD dw periodically sends the request 10 end
packets to the social sensor. 11 According to the definition of vector: 
12 u(j) = (u1 , u1 , . . . , uj , . . . , un ), (when j = i, uj = 0 ;
In response, all social sensors that accept the request Calculate the
13
 weight of each index  through information entry:

will upload their interaction history with other social sen- 14
 η1 , η2 , . . . , ηj , . . . , ηn , (when
hη (j) =  j = i, ηj = 0 where
sors, including direct trust values fed back to the FD ηj = uj / u1 + u2 + . . . + uj + . . . + un (j = 1, 2, . . . , n) ;
15 DBs ,s  (t) = hη (j) ∗ fdw →sj (t);
and the FD saves these direct trust values in matrix i j
End
fdw →sj (t) 16

fdw →sj (t)

⎛ ⎞
SD(s1 ,s1 ) (t) ··· SD(si ,s1 ) (t) ··· SD(sn ,s1 ) (t) according to the following equation:
⎜SD(s1 ,s2 ) (t) ··· SD(si ,s2 ) (t) ··· SD(sn ,s2 ) (t)⎟ SG(si→ sj ) (t) = α(t) ∗ SDk (si ,sj ) (t)
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ⎟
=⎜ ⎜SD(s ,s ) (t)
⎟. + (1 − α(t)) ∗ DB(si ,sj ) (t) (9)
⎜ 1 j
··· SD(si ,sj ) (t) ··· SD(sn ,sj ) (t)⎟⎟
⎝ ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ⎠ where α(t) and 1 − α(t) are the weights of SDk (si , sj ) and
SD(s1 ,sn ) (t) ··· SD(si ,sn ) (t) ··· SD(sn ,sn ) (t) DB(si ,sj ) , respectively. We believe that sensors with social fac-
(6) tors, if more successful interactions, the two will trust each
other more.
Since the recommendation trust value should be a nor- Therefore, the weight of direct trust is higher. Traditional
malized matrix, to eliminate the influence of the physical schemes generally assign weights manually, resulting in a lack
dimension. When the FD feeds the recommendation trust to of flexibility in the weighting of trust factors.
the social sensor si , in order to avoid affecting the objectivity, Based on the low latency and flexibility of the fog com-
the social sensor si ’s own evaluation is discarded. puting, we use the FD to monitor the requests of different
Aggregating the recommendation trust of different social social sensors in a certain period of time, and set the weight
sensors to sj , considering the historical success rate (repre- of the trust factor according to the frequency requested
sented by η) of the social sensor si interacting with other by the social sensor sj for si within the specified period.
social sensors as a weighting factor: ηj = uj /(u1 + u2 + · · · + α(t) = 1 − vn (0 ≤ v ≤ 1), n is the number of the times that
uj + · · · + un ), uj represents the number of successful interac- sensor sj is requested to interact with si . Algorithm 2 details
tions between the jth sensor and si , when j = i, uj = 0, the the global trust computing of the social sensor.
weighting factor of the recommended trust value is represented
by vector hη (j) as VI. T HEORETICAL A NALYSIS AND S IMULATION
   A. Theoretical Analysis
hη (j) = η1 , η2 , . . . , ηj , . . . , ηn j = i, ηj = 0 . (7)
1) Space Complexity: The traditional trust models usually
According to (6) and (7), the recommendation of the FD use the broadcast policy to collect the feedback trust value of
based on feedback to the social sensor si can be expressed as the entire cluster, which increases the communication overhead
and communication delay of the mechanism. In our proposed
DB(s ,sj ) (t) = hη (j) ∗ fdw →sj (t). (8) RTCM, social sensors do not share trust information with
i

The social sensors send feedback trust to the FD, and the
recommendation trust generated by the FD calculated is as
shown in Algorithm 1.
D. S-to-S Global Trust
After obtaining the D-to-S recommendation trust of S-to-S
direct trust and FD feedback, according to Definition 3, global
trust is the result of the fusion of S-to-S direct trust and D-to-S
recommendation trust, so global trust should be calculated
others, but calculate according to feedback generated by the
collection of FDs. We assume that there are m fog platforms in
the SSC, and each fog platform serves n social sensor nodes.
In the specified time interval, the maximum trust calculation
is γ times, so the maximum communication overhead of trust
information transmission is
totalcommunication (t) = m ∗ (n + 2n) ∗ γ = 3mnγ .
Proof: When calculating the global trust, the social sensor
node si sends a feedback request to the FD dw , and receives

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
LIANG et al.: RELIABLE TRUST COMPUTING MECHANISM BASED ON MULTISOURCE FEEDBACK AND FOG COMPUTING IN SOCIAL SENSOR CLOUD
Algorithm 2: Global Trust Algorithm for Social Sensors
Input : a social sensor set S = {s1 , s2 , . . . , si , . . . , sn }, a fog device set
D = {d1 , d2 , . . . , dw , . . . , dm } , S-to-S direct trust
SDs ,s  (t), D-to-S feedback trust DBs ,s  (t) and the time
i j i j
interval t for trust calculation;
Output: SGs →s  (t)
i j
1 Begin
2 Social sensor si send a request message to fog device dw for si ’s
feedback trust DBs ,s  (t);
i j
3 if (t > 0) then
4 for ((z=1 to n, and Sz ∈ S) do
5 sz send the S-to-S direct trust SDs ,s  (t) to their fog device
i j
dw ;
6 end
7 dw aggravates these feedbacks to obtain DBs ,s  (t) and sent it
i j
8 to si ;
9  
si computes sj ’s S-to-S direct trust SD s ,s (t) according to sj ’s
i j
10 behavior;
11 si aggravates SD s ,s (t) and DB s ,s (t) and SGs ,s  (t);
   
i j i j
12 end
13 End
at most one feedback response from the FD. Therefore, the
total communication overhead of the recommendation trust of
the requesting FD is 2nγ . Next, si will use the direct trust
information to sj to feedback to the FD, and the total commu-
nication overhead of the feedback report information is nγ .
Therefore, if there are m FDs, the maximum communication
overhead for completing the trust calculation is 3mnγ .
2) Time Complexity: In the proposed trust computer
system, the maximum time complexity of S-to-S global trust is
 
totaltime (t) = O n2 .
Proof: It is assumed that there are m FDs in the SSC and
each FD serves n social sensor nodes. The time complexity of
S-to-S global trust is determined by the number of executions
of the algorithm in a specified time interval t.
In Algorithm 1, the recommendation trust fed back to the
FD by the social sensor is calculated, and the number of cycles
is n2 , in Algorithm 2, the recommendation trust is requested
by the social sensor that sends the request and the global trust
value calculation is performed on the other social sensor in
combination with the direct trust and the number of cycles
is n, so the time complexity is totaltime (t) = O(n2 ).
B. Simulations
1) Simulation Design: In order to verify and analyze the
reliability of the proposed trust computing mechanism, we use
the NetLogo to conduct simulations. Netlogo is a simulator
implemented in the Java language, and it can simulate the
process of interaction between social sensor entities and FDs
in the SSC.
In the trust computing mechanism based on multisource
feedback aggregation, the main threat comes from the feed-
back of malicious social sensor nodes in the sensing layer.
In this experiment, we design three scenes for simulation.
For comparison, a current typical personal similarity mea-
sure mechanism (PSM) [28] and a distributed reputation
management mechanism (DRM) [29] are added to the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5487
TABLE I
PARAMETERS AND P OSSIBLE VALUES
NetLogo simulator for the experiment. PSM is based on the
cosine similarity to measure observing conditions by describ-
ing how much the traveling status of rater is similar to that
of ratee, and the fixed weight of similarity is preset for high-
accuracy reputation computation. DRM is proposed by setting
i j
distributed local authorities (LAs) for detecting node to update
the reputation values, then LAs comprehensively weigh the
reputation values of service providers and optimize service
resource allocation. In simulations, we deploy two types of
social sensor nodes and FD. There are two types of social
sensor nodes, one is honest sensor node (HS) and it always
provides correct feedback, the other is malicious and provides
feedback that is opposite to the actual data. In the simulator,
it is assumed that the feedback provided by the fog layer is
always reliable because the fog layer is managed by the cloud
data center.
The parameters and values used in the simulation are shown
in Table I. The computer used in the simulation is con-
figured as CPU 3.2 GB, memory 16 GB, and hard disk
1 TB. The simulator has 1000 social sensor nodes and 40
FDs. The simulation running time step is 600 s, and the
trust calculation interval is 50 s. In the simulation, the trust
value of the node ranges from 0 to 1 (4), we set the trust
threshold to 0.5, and HSs are trusted node with an ini-
tial trust value greater than 0.5. After successful interaction,
the trust value is promoted by the FD (9), the more inter-
actions, the trust value will be promoted higher. FD is a
collaborative device that is responsible for global trust cal-
culation. We assume that feedbacks of FD are always reliable,
the greater the number of participating collaborations with
the higher computing efficiency. The social sensor honesty
ratio in the three simulation scenarios is 90%, 80%, and
60%. The FD collaboration ratio is divided into 75%, 50%,
and 25%, which means the SSC system correspondingly are
idle, busy, and highly busy. The simulated device entity
indicates that the underlying SSC is in different network
states.
Scene 1: The node is honest and the FD is idle (HS accounts
for 90% and FD accounts for 25%).
Scene 2: The node is dishonest and the FD is busy (HS
accounts for 80% and FD accounts for 50%).
Scene 3: The node height is dishonest and the FD is highly
busy (HS accounts for 60% and FD accounts for 75%).
We obtain the task success rate of social sensors in different
scenes, perform trust evaluation for social sensor nodes, and
compare and analyze the computational efficiency and reli-
ability of the trust computer system proposed. For a better
5488
Fig. 3. Task success ratio in scene 1.
Fig. 4. Task success ratio in scene 2.
comparison, PSM and DRM are added to the NetLogo for
simulation.
2) Analysis of Simulation Results (Reliability With Different
Percent of HS): In the simulation, we compute task success
rates to reflect the reliability of RTCM. According to the task
success rate of the social sensor which changes with time in
different scenes, the reliability of the proposed trust comput-
ing mechanism is reflected. The higher the task success rate,
the higher the reliability of the trust computing mechanism.
Figs. 3–5 show the task success rate in the three scenes. In
these simulations, we assume that the feedback of FD is always
trustworthy.
Fig. 3 shows that in scene 1, at the beginning of the simula-
tion, the trust mechanism we proposed takes the task success
rate for 83%, significantly higher than PSM and DRM, and the
task success rate of the three mechanisms over time tends to
a higher level. It shows that the three trust computing mech-
anisms have higher reliability when the nodes are relatively
honest and the FD is idle.
In Fig. 4, it shows that in scene 2, at the beginning of
the simulation, RTCM takes the task success rate for 82%,
PSM takes the task success rate for 75%, and DRM takes
the task success rate for 67%. With the changing of time,
the success rate of the three mechanisms becomes stable.
It shows that RTCM has higher reliability than PSM and
Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 7, NO. 6, JUNE 2020
Fig. 5. Task success ratio in scene 3.
DRM when the nodes are relatively dishonest and the FD is
busy.
In Fig. 5, it shows that in scene 3, at the beginning of the
simulation, RTCM takes the task success rate for 64%, PSM
takes the task success rate for 48%, and DRM takes the task
success rate for 38%. With the changing of time, task success
rate in the three scenes is gradually improved. It shows that
with the state of node dishonesty and FD, RTCM has better
reliability than PSM and DRM.
3) Analysis of Simulation Results (Trust Evolution): In the
three scenes, social sensor node accepts the data request, and
completes data interaction, then the trust value of social sen-
sor can be further increased and the interaction record is
submitted to the FD for saving and updating. If the node
does not complete the interaction, then the interaction record
will also be submitted to the FD, and updated according to
Algorithms 1 and 2, and the weights of S-to-S direct trust
and D-to-S recommended trust are adjusted according to the
number of interactions and the success rate of the interaction,
thereby overcomes the limitation of traditional trust computing
mechanisms to manually set the weight.
In the three scenes, the average trust value of social sensor
nodes are separately counted. The initial global trust SG of
the honest social sensor node is randomly distributed from 0.5
to 1, and the malicious social sensors are randomly distributed
from 0 to 0.5. Figs. 6–8 show the average trust value of social
sensors in scenes 1–3. We can draw a conclusion that RTCM
has higher values as the interaction time increasing than PSM
and DRM.
The above simulation results reflect that when the node
is dishonest and the network state of the FD is busy, it
will affect the data interaction between social sensor nodes,
and decrease the efficiency of trust computing in SSC bot-
tom, and the worse network state, the more significant of
impact. The trust calculation of RTCM is combined of
feedback by FD and dynamically adjusts the weight of
S-to-S direct trust and D-to-S recommended trust accord-
ing to feedback. Compared with PSM and DRM, it has a
higher task success rate in different scenarios. Therefore, the
proposed trust computing mechanism has higher reliability and
flexibility.
LIANG et al.: RELIABLE TRUST COMPUTING MECHANISM BASED ON MULTISOURCE FEEDBACK AND FOG COMPUTING IN SOCIAL SENSOR CLOUD
Fig. 6. Average trust value in scene 1.
Fig. 7. Average trust value in scene 2.
Fig. 8. Average trust value in scene 3.
VII. C ONCLUSION
This article proposed an RTCM that combines multisource
feedback and fog computing in SSC. First, the trust value
of the social node is evaluated. Second, the social sensor
needs to compute the global trust value through the feed-
back of other nodes and FDs. At the same time, an algorithm
for dynamically adjusting the weights of different trust fac-
tors is proposed, which can optimize the SSC system with
Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5489
FD, effectively improve the computing efficiency, reduce the
communication delay and transmission cost, and enhance the
service quality and security of the SSC.
The simulation results show that compared with the exist-
ing trust mechanisms, RCTM has obvious advantages in terms
of computational efficiency and reliability. However, there are
still many fields for improvement in the current trust com-
puting system based on fog computing. The next step of the
research work is to consider how to adjust the weights of dif-
ferent trust factors more flexibly according to the feedback
of social sensor nodes, to increase the reliability of the trust
computing mechanism.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. Zhu, V. C. M. Leung, J. J. P. C. Rodrigues, L. Shu, L. Wang,
and H. Zhou, “Social sensor cloud: Framework, greenness, issues, and
outlook,” IEEE Netw., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 100–105, Sep./Oct. 2018.
[2] Q. Xu, Z. Su, S. Yu, and Y. Wang, “Trust based incentive scheme to
allocate big data tasks with mobile social cloud,” IEEE Trans. Big Data,
early access, doi: 10.1109/TBDATA.2017.2764925.
[3] T. Aamir, A. Bouguettaya, H. Dong, A. Erradi, and R. Hadjidj, “Social-
sensor cloud service selection,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Web Services
(ICWS), 2017, pp. 508–515.
[4] W. Tian, L. Yang, J. Weijia, W. Guojun, and P. Shaoliang, “Research
progress of sensor-cloud security,” J. Commun., vol. 39, no. 3,
pp. 35–52, 2018.
[5] A. G. Neiat, A. Bouguettaya, T. Sellis, and S. Mistry, “Crowdsourced
coverage as a service: Two-level composition of sensor cloud services,”
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1384–1397, Jul. 2017.
[6] R. J. R. Reyes, F. F. de Mendonca, and K. L. Dias, “A service-
oriented architecture with data virtualization support for cloud-based
wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. VII Brazil. Symp. Comput. Syst. Eng.
(SBESC), 2017, pp. 199–204.
[7] C. Chang, S. N. Srirama, and M. Liyanage, “A service-oriented mobile
cloud middleware framework for provisioning mobile sensing as a
service,” in Proc. IEEE 21st Int. Conf. Parallel Distrib. Syst. (ICPADS),
2015, pp. 124–131.
[8] S. Rani, S. H. Ahmed, R. Talwar, and J. Malhotra, “Can sensors collect
big data? An energy efficient big data gathering algorithm for WSN,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1961–1968, Aug. 2017.
[9] K. Nakashima, M. Yokoyama, Y. Taniyama, T. Yoshihisa, and T. Hara,
“S3 system: A system for sharing social sensor data and analytical
programs,” in Proc. Adjunct Int. Conf. Mobile Ubiquitous Syst. Comput.
Netw. Services, 2016, pp. 147–152.
[10] J. D. Zeng et al., “Research progress of sensor-cloud,” J. Comput. Res.
Develop., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 925–939, 2017.
[11] I. Petri, J. Diaz-Montes, O. Rana, M. Punceva, I. Rodero, and
M. Parashar, “Modelling and implementing social community clouds,”
IEEE Trans. Services Comput., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 410–422,
May/Jun. 2015.
[12] S. Chatterjee, R. Ladia, and S. Misra, “Dynamic optimal pric-
ing for heterogeneous service-oriented architecture of sensor-cloud
infrastructure,” IEEE Trans. Services Comput., vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 203–216, Mar./Apr. 2015.
[13] T. Aamir, H. Dong, and A. Bouguettaya, “Trust in social-sensor
cloud service,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Web Services (ICWS), 2018,
pp. 359–362.
[14] L. F. Bilecki and A. Fiorese, “A trust reputation architecture for cloud
computing environment,” in Proc. IEEE 14th ACS Int. Conf. Comput.
Syst. Appl. (AICCSA), 2017, pp. 614–621.
[15] S. Bhatt and V. Krishnamurthy, “Controlled information fusion with risk-
averse CVaR social sensors,” in Proc. IEEE 56th Annu. Conf. Decis.
Control (CDC), 2017, pp. 2605–2610.
[16] M. Rezvani, A. Ignjatovic, E. Bertino, and S. K. Jha, “A trust assessment
framework for streaming data in WSNs using iterative filtering,” in Proc.
IEEE 10th Int. Conf. Intell. Sensors Sensor Netw. Inf. Process. (ISSNIP),
2015, pp. 1–6.
[17] K. Chard, S. Caton, O. F. Rana, and K. Bubendorfer, “Social cloud:
Cloud computing in social networks,” in Proc. IEEE 3rd Int. Conf. Cloud
Comput., 2010, pp. 99–106.
[18] S. Madria, V. Kumar, and R. Dalvi, “Sensor cloud: A cloud of virtual
sensors,” IEEE Softw., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 70–77, Mar./Apr. 2013.
5490
[19] Z. Aiko, K. Nakashima, T. Yoshihisa, and T. Hara, “A social sensor visu-
alization system for a platform to generate and share social sensor data,”
in Proc. IEEE 42nd Annu. Comput. Softw. Appl. Conf. (COMPSAC),
Feb. 2018, pp. 628–633.
[20] X. Yi, A. Bouguettaya, D. Georgakopoulos, A. Song, and J. Willemson,
“Privacy protection for wireless medical sensor data,” IEEE Trans.
Depend. Secure Comput., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 369–380, Feb. 2015.
[21] B. Guler et al., “Using social sensors for influence propagation in
networks with positive and negative relationships,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics
Signal Process., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 360–373, Mar. 2015.
[22] F. H. Bijarbooneh, W. Du, E. C.-H. Ngai, X. Fu, and J. Liu, “Cloud-
assisted data fusion and sensor selection for Internet-of-Things,” IEEE
Internet Things J., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 257–268, Jun. 2016.
[23] C. Pahl, N. E. Ioini, S. Helmer, and B. Lee, “An architecture pattern for
trusted orchestration in IoT edge clouds,” in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Fog
Mobile Edge Comput. (FMEC), 2018, pp. 63–70.
[24] F. Li, X. Wang, H. Chen, K. Sharif, and Y. Wang, “ClickLeak: Keystroke
leaks through multimodal sensors in cyber-physical social networks,”
IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 27311–27321, 2017.
[25] O.-J. Lee, H. L. Nguyen, J. E. Jung, T.-W. Um, and H.-W. Lee, “Towards
ontological approach on trust-aware ambient services,” IEEE Access,
vol. 5, pp. 1589–1599, 2017.
[26] T. Wang et al., “A comprehensive trustworthy data collection approach
in sensor-cloud system,” IEEE Trans. Big Data, early access.
[27] G. Zhang, T. Wang, G. Wang, A. Liu, and W. Jia, “Detection of hid-
den data attacks combined fog computing and trust evaluation method
in sensor-cloud system,” Concurrency Comput. Pract. Exp., to be
published.
[28] J. Yuan and X. Li, “A reliable and lightweight trust computing mecha-
nism for IoT edge devices based on multi-source feedback information
fusion,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 23626–23638, 2018.
[29] X. Huang, R. Yu, J. Kang, and Y. Zhang, “Distributed reputation
management for secure and efficient vehicular edge computing and
networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 25408–25420, 2017.
[30] A. Jøsang, R. Ismail, and C. Boyd, “A survey of trust and reputation
systems for online service provision,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 43, no. 2,
pp. 618–644, 2007.
[31] K. Govindan and P. Mohapatra, “Trust computations and trust dynamics
in mobile adhoc networks: A survey,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts.,
vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 279–298, 2nd Quart., 2011.
[32] S. E. Chang, A. Y. Liu, and W. C. Shen, “User trust in social networking
services: A comparison of Facebook and LinkedIn,” Comput. Human
Behav., vol. 69, pp. 207–217, Apr. 2017.
Junbin Liang received the B.E. and M.S. degrees
from Guangxi University, Nanning, China, in 2000
and 2005, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree from
Central South University, Changsha, China, in 2010.
He is currently a Professor with Guangxi
University. He is currently a Visiting Professor with
the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,
Canada. His research interests include sensor-cloud
systems, fog computing, and distributed computing.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Istinye Universitesi. Downloaded on April 21,2023 at 01:21:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 7, NO. 6, JUNE 2020
Min Zhang received the B.E. degree from Central
South University, Changsha, China, in 2016. She is
currently pursuing the M.S. degree in software engi-
neering with Guangxi University, Nanning, China.
Her research interests focus on wireless sensor
networks and cloud computing.
Victor C. M. Leung (Fellow, IEEE) received the
B.A.Sc. (Hons.) degree in electrical engineering
from the University of British Columbia (UBC),
Vancouver, BC, Canada, in 1977, and was awarded
the APEBC Gold Medal as the Head of the grad-
uating class with the Faculty of Applied Science,
and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
UBC in 1982, through a Canadian Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council Postgraduate
Scholarship.
He is currently a Distinguished Professor of com-
puter science and software engineering with Shenzhen University, Shenzhen,
China. He is also an Emeritus Professor of electrical and computer engineering
and the Director of the Laboratory for Wireless Networks and Mobile Systems
with the University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, BC, Canada. He
has coauthored more than 1300 journal/conference papers and book chapters.
His research is in the broad areas of wireless networks and mobile systems.
Dr. Leung received the IEEE Vancouver Section Centennial Award,
the 2011 UBC Killam Research Prize, the 2017 Canadian Award for
Telecommunications Research, and the 2018 IEEE TCGCC Distinguished
Technical Achievement Recognition Award. He coauthored papers that won
the 2017 IEEE ComSoc Fred W. Ellersick Prize, the 2017 IEEE Systems
Journal Best Paper Award, the 2018 IEEE CSIM Best Journal Paper Award,
and the 2019 IEEE TCGCC Best Journal Paper Award. He is named in
the current Clarivate Analytics list of “Highly Cited Researchers.” He is
serving on the Editorial Boards for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON G REEN
C OMMUNICATIONS AND N ETWORKING, the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON
C LOUD C OMPUTING, IEEE ACCESS, IEEE N ETWORK, and several other
journals. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian
Academy of Engineering, and the Engineering Institute of Canada.