KR102013027B1 - Method for calculating reliability of peer and method for updating peer evaluation data - Google Patents

Abstract

The method relates to a peer reliability calculation method and a method for updating peer evaluation data, and more particularly, to a peer reliability calculation method and a method for updating peer evaluation data in consideration of the content provided by the peer and the network status of the peer. According to one embodiment, a peer reliability calculation method for calculating the reliability of a first peer sharing content in a peer-to-peer network, the peer reliability calculation method using the evaluation information on the previously evaluated content, Calculating content-confidence value for content provided by 1 peer, calculating network-confidence value for network state of first peer using previously evaluated network evaluation information, and content-reliability and network- Calculating a peer-confidence value of the first peer from the confidence value.

Description

How to calculate peer reliability and how to update peer evaluation data {METHOD FOR CALCULATING RELIABILITY OF PEER AND METHOD FOR UPDATING PEER EVALUATION DATA}

It is associated with providing a peer-to-peer network service, and more particularly, with a service providing a reputation assessment of a peer in a peer-to-peer network.

Proliferation of mobile devices such as smart phones and the development of communication technologies such as Bluetooth and RFID are increasing the provision of mobile peer-to-peer network services. However, due to limited factors such as communication range, battery, memory, and storage space, mobile peer-to-peer networks can directly adapt the technology used in the existing peer-to-peer network to the mobile peer-to-peer network. There are several limitations.

In a peer-to-peer network, due to direct communication between peers, content sharing may be performed with erroneous or malicious information. Thus, there is a need for reliability verification for content shared in peer-to-peer networks.

According to one side, the peer reliability calculation method for the node device of the peer-to-peer network to calculate the reliability of the first peer sharing content in the network, the peer reliability calculation method is to evaluate the evaluation information for the previously evaluated content Calculating a content-confidence value for the content provided by the first peer, using the previously evaluated network evaluation information, calculating a network-confidence value for the network state of the first peer and the content- Calculating a peer-reliability value of the first peer from the reliability and network-reliability values.

According to one embodiment, calculating the content-confidence value may include: calculating the content rating information for the content, the first peer, the second peer who received the content from the first peer, the score and the rating that the second peer rated on the content. The view point information may be extracted from the content evaluation information table including the item.

According to another embodiment, the step of calculating a network-reliability value includes the network evaluation information as an item including a first peer, a second peer for monitoring a network state of the first peer, and network packet transmission and reception count information. Can be extracted from the network packet information table.

According to another embodiment, the number of network packet transmission and reception information includes the number of times a first peer transmits a control packet and a data packet directly to a second peer, and a control that the first peer receives from a third peer to a second peer. It may include the number of times the packet and data packet was delivered.

According to another embodiment, calculating the content-confidence value may include direct evaluation of the second peer in communication with the first peer when the second peer requests a peer-confidence value of the first peer. An evaluation value and an indirect evaluation value evaluated by the third peer in communication with the first peer may be used to calculate the content-confidence value.

According to another exemplary embodiment, the calculating of the content-confidence value may calculate the content-confidence value by varying the weights of the direct evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value.

According to another embodiment, the step of calculating the network-reliability value comprises the direct evaluation of the second peer in communication with the first peer when the second peer requests the peer-reliability value of the first peer. The network-reliability value may be calculated using the evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value that the third peer evaluated when communicating with the first peer.

According to another embodiment, calculating the network-reliability value may calculate the network-reliability value by varying the weights of the direct evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value.

According to another embodiment, calculating the peer-confidence value may calculate the peer-confidence value by varying the weights of the content-confidence and network-confidence values.

According to another aspect, a method of updating evaluation data used by a node device of a peer-to-peer network to calculate peer-trust of a target peer sharing content in the network, wherein the updating method of the evaluation data is evaluated. The data consists of the evaluator, the target peer, the evaluation information, and the viewpoint information for distinguishing before and after of the evaluation point. When any one of the evaluator and the evaluation information is different, it may be determined whether to update the evaluation data using the viewpoint information.

According to an embodiment, when the viewpoint information of the new evaluation data is more recent than the viewpoint information of the previous evaluation data, the evaluation data is updated with the new evaluation data, and the viewpoint information of the new evaluation data is greater than the viewpoint information of the previous evaluation data. If it appears in the past, pre-evaluation data can be maintained.

1 illustrates a method of sharing content between peers in consideration of a peer's reliability according to an embodiment.
2 illustrates a method for calculating peer reliability according to an embodiment.
3 illustrates a method of sharing content between peers in consideration of peer reliability according to an embodiment.
4 is a table illustrating evaluation information of content shared by a peer, according to an exemplary embodiment.
5 illustrates control and data packet transmission between peers according to an embodiment.
6 is a table illustrating network evaluation information for evaluating a network state of a peer sharing content according to an embodiment.
FIG. 7 illustrates a table representing assessment information for a peer, including content shared by the peer and the network state of the peer, according to one embodiment.
8 illustrates a method of updating evaluation information between peers having no communication history according to an embodiment.

Hereinafter, embodiments will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, the scope of rights is not limited or limited by these embodiments. Like reference numerals in the drawings denote like elements.

The terminology used in the description below has been selected to be general and universal in the art to which it relates, although other terms may vary depending on the development and / or change in technology, conventions, and preferences of those skilled in the art. Therefore, the terms used in the following description should not be understood as limiting the technical spirit, and should be understood as exemplary terms for describing the embodiments.

In addition, in certain cases, there is a term arbitrarily selected by the applicant, and in this case, the meaning thereof will be described in detail in the corresponding description. Therefore, the terms used in the following description should be understood based on the meanings of the terms and the contents throughout the specification, rather than simply the names of the terms.

1 illustrates a method of sharing content between peers in consideration of a peer's reliability according to an embodiment. 1 may be understood with reference to the information 120 of the arrow.

The first peer 100 may request information about necessary content from the second peer 101, the third peer 102, the fourth peer 103, and the fifth peer 104, which are neighboring peers. At this time, neighboring peers may transmit information about the content they have to the first peer. According to an embodiment, the information 110 about the content possessed by the second peer may be transmitted to the first peer. In addition, while transmitting information about the content, information about the reliability of the peer can be transmitted together.

The first peer may communicate directly with the neighboring peer and request information about the content, or indirectly communicate with the other peers communicating with the neighboring peers through the neighboring peer and request information about the content. According to an embodiment, the sixth peer 105, the seventh peer 106, and the eighth peer 107, which are other peers in communication with neighboring peers, may indirectly request information about the content. For example, when the first peer requests content information from the fourth peer, the fourth peer may request corresponding content information from the sixth peer and the seventh peer, which are neighboring peers. Similarly, when the first peer requests content information from the fifth peer, the fifth peer may request the corresponding content information from the eighth peer which is the neighboring peer. Alternatively, when the fourth peer knows the content information of the seventh peer that is already the neighboring peer, the fourth peer may directly transmit the content information of the seventh peer to the first peer.

In one embodiment, the first peer may have a peer assessment information database for the neighbor peer and other peers in communication with the neighbor peer. For some nearby peers and other peers, peer assessment information may not be available, in which case you can update your own peer assessment database from a peer assessment database of neighboring peers and other peers. Peer evaluation information can be obtained.

The trust 130 for each peer can be calculated from the peer assessment information database, and the calculated trust allows the first peer to determine from which peer to receive the content data.

In one embodiment, when the first peer requests content information from the second peer, and the second peer requests the content information from a sixth peer that is a neighboring peer, the sixth peer sends the content information to the second peer. The second peer may transmit corresponding content information to the first peer. In this manner, the first peer can indirectly communicate with the sixth peer, not with the neighboring peer.

The first peer may receive content information from the neighboring peer and other peers in communication with the neighboring peer. From the received information, the peers having content required by the first peer may be determined, and the first peer among the peers may select the most reliable peer and request data of the content. According to an embodiment, the first peer may request data of the content from the sixth peer having the highest peer reliability, and the sixth peer may transmit data of the content directly or indirectly to the first peer.

2 illustrates a method for calculating peer reliability according to an embodiment. 1 shows the overall flow of calculating the peer's reliability 130.

When a peer to be evaluated is referred to as a target peer, table data 203 indicating evaluation information on the contents of the target peer and table data 206 indicating the network status of the target peer are collected to evaluate the target peer. Information may be collected 200. The process of creating the content evaluation information table 203 and the network packet information table 206 will be described in detail with reference to FIGS. 4 and 6. Next, peer evaluation information can be calculated 210 from the content evaluation information and the network evaluation information (network packet information), and a table 215 representing the peer evaluation information can be created. The process of creating the peer evaluation information table 215 will be described in detail with reference to FIG. 7.

When a peer requesting content information and content data to target peers is called a first peer, the first peer may collect the evaluation information table of the target peers to build an evaluation information table database, The classification 220 may be used to calculate the reliability.

The reliability calculation of the target peers is calculated from the content reputation 223 and the network reputation 226, the content reputation is calculated from the information in the content rating table, and the network reliability can be calculated from the network information table.

The calculation of content reliability and network reliability may be performed by direct evaluation and indirect evaluation, which are directly communicated with the first peer in the evaluation table database of the target peers, so that the first peer has accumulated and performed evaluation on the target peers. The data is classified as a direct evaluation, and the evaluation data accumulated by a peer other than the first peer while communicating with the target peer may be classified as an indirect evaluation.

When classified as a direct evaluation and an indirect evaluation, the weight may be reflected when the data are reflected to calculate the reliability. Of course, the two weights can be the same. The content reliability 223 and the network reliability 226 will be described in detail below.

The peer's reliability can be calculated 230 from the calculated content reliability and the network reliability. It accumulates a database of the reliability of the target peers calculated in this way, and extracts the content data from either the neighbor peer that is determined to have the content information required by the first peer, or another peer communicating with the neighbor peer. In determining whether to receive the data, the accumulated reliability database can be utilized.

3 illustrates a method of sharing content between peers in consideration of peer reliability according to an embodiment.

A peer requesting content information and content data from target peers is called an X peer 300, and another peer communicating with a neighboring peer and a neighboring peer is called Ps 305. At this time, if the X peer requests information about whether the Ps peers have the content required by the Ps peers, the Ps peers may transmit information about the peers owning the corresponding content to the X peers. At this time, the X peer may request a peer evaluation information table for calculating the reliability of peers in order to select a peer having the highest reliability among a plurality of peers owning the corresponding content and receive the data of the corresponding content.

When the Ps peers are requested for information on the peer evaluation information table, the peer evaluation information table 315 which each peer has may transmit 310 to the X peer. Evaluation information for a plurality of peers utilizing a peer-to-peer network may be written in the peer evaluation information table that each peer has.

The peer X may calculate the reliability of the peers by using the received peer evaluation information table, and select 320 the peer with the highest reliability among peers having the required content.

The X peer can request content data from the selected peer, and the selected peer can request content data from the X peer.

After the peer X receives the content data, the X peer may perform the content evaluation 330 to record evaluation information about the peer that transmitted the content data. The content evaluation table 333 is created based on the information evaluated by the peer X who has transmitted the content data, and the network packet information table 336 is created by updating the network packet transmission information of the peer that transmitted the content data. Can be. The network packet information table will be described in detail with reference to FIG. 6.

The content evaluation information table and the network packet information table newly created by the X peer provide information to the peer evaluation information table 315, which has accumulated the previously evaluated data and accumulated the database, thereby newly updating the peer evaluation information table. Can be.

4 is a table illustrating evaluation information of content shared by a peer, according to an exemplary embodiment.

S_PID represents the ID of the peer who evaluated the content, and R_PID represents the peer who received the evaluation and represents the ID of the peer that provided the content. C_ID represents the ID of the corresponding content, Rate represents the score of the evaluated content, and Time represents the time when the S_PID peer evaluated the content.

According to FIG. 4, peer X communicates with peer Y, and the value of sharing and evaluating C_1 content is 0.5. Similarly, peer X communicates with peer Z, and the C_a content is shared and evaluated by 0.9. The temporal and later evaluation of C_a content is later than the time X evaluates by sharing Y and C_1 content. Similarly, peer X communicates with peer Z, and the C_3 content is shared and evaluated is 0.7, and the temporal success is later than the time X shared and evaluated C_a content from Z peer.

The content rating table may be stored and stored by each peer in a database. The content rating table may be utilized to determine a peer to whom content is shared by calculating a content confidence value and calculating a peer confidence value from content sharing between peers.

5 illustrates control and data packet transmission between peers according to an embodiment.

According to one embodiment of FIG. 5, peer X 500 may transmit a data packet to peer W 510. In addition, peer X may transmit a data packet to peer Y 530, and peer Y may transmit a data packet received from peer X to a neighboring peer.

According to an embodiment of FIG. 5, peer X may request a control packet from neighboring peers. Neighboring peers (Peer X, Peer Y, and Peer Z 520) that have received a request from Peer X can send the control packet to Peer X if they have the corresponding control packet. However, if the neighboring peers have the corresponding control packet and can request it, the neighboring peer may request the neighboring peers to receive the corresponding control packet and transmit the received control packet to peer X.

As such, peer X can send or receive data packets and control packets directly to neighboring peers, and data packets from other peers to which peer X is not directly communicating but neighboring peers communicate through neighboring peers. And receive control packets or send data packets and control packets to other peers.

The transmission information of the data packet and the control packet between the peers is used as information for evaluating the network state of the peer, which will be described in detail with reference to FIG. 6 below.

6 is a table illustrating network evaluation information for evaluating a network state of a peer sharing content according to an embodiment.

S_PID represents a peer that monitors network status, and R_PID represents a peer that is evaluated, that is, monitored. In other words, S_PID communicates with R_PID, records information about packets sent and received with neighboring peers of R_PID or other peers communicating with nearby peers, and evaluates the network status of R_PID. Can be recorded. CP_self represents the number of control packet transmissions that R_PID sends to other peers that are communicating directly. CP_other receives control packets from one peer for the two peers that are communicating, although R_PID does not communicate directly. Shows the number of times a control packet is sent to a peer. DP_self represents the number of data packets sent by R_PID to other peers with whom it is communicating directly. DP_other does not directly communicate with R_PID, but receives data packets from one peer for the two peers that are communicating. Shows the number of times data packets are sent to a peer.

According to one embodiment of FIG. 6, when peer X monitors peer Y's network status, peer Y transmits 13 control packets directly to other peers to which peer Y communicates directly. The number of times that a packet has been mediated is 15. In addition, the number of data packets transmitted directly to other peers directly communicating is three, and the number of times of mediating data packet transmission between two peers is two.

Similarly, according to FIG. 6, when peer X monitors the network state of peer Z, the number of transmission of control packets directly transmitted to other peers that peer Z communicates with is 11, and control packet transmission between two peers. The number of times mediated is nine. In addition, the number of data packets transmitted directly to other peers communicating directly is three, and the number of times of mediating data packet transmission between two peers is one.

Similarly, according to Fig. 6, when peer X is monitoring network status of peer W, the number of times of transmission of control packets directly sent to other peers that peer W communicates directly is eight, and control packets between two peers. The number of times mediated is six. In addition, the number of data packets transmitted directly to other peers directly communicating is two, and the number of times of mediating data packet transmission between two peers is zero.

As such, the evaluation of the network condition of the peer may be performed in consideration of the number of times the peer has transmitted and received the control packet and the data packet while communicating with the neighboring peer or the neighboring peer.

FIG. 7 illustrates a table representing assessment information for a peer, including content shared by the peer and the network state of the peer, according to one embodiment.

According to the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 7, S_PID corresponds to a peer that evaluates in the content evaluation table or a peer that monitors in the network evaluation table, and R_PID monitors a peer evaluated in the content evaluation table or a network evaluation table. Corresponds to the receiving peer. C_Rate represents an average of evaluation values for a plurality of contents provided by a peer, and N_Rate represents an average of a plurality of evaluation values for a network state of a peer. C_Count represents the number of times that the S_PID has evaluated the R_PID, and the LUT means the index where the evaluation information about the peer has been recently updated. When the LUT values are compared, the higher the LUT value, the more recently updated evaluation information.

The C_Rate calculation formula will be described in more detail through Equation 1 below.

In Equation 1, N denotes the number of contents, Contentlist denotes a content evaluation list, and x and y denote S_PID and R_PID in the content evaluation information table, respectively. According to Equation 1, C_Rate may be calculated by calculating an average of a plurality of pieces of content evaluation information for evaluating content in a communication process of transmitting content between x, that is, S_PID and y, that is, R_PID.

Next, the N_rate calculation formula will be described in more detail through Equation 2, Equation 3, and Equation 4 below.

The network packet information is determined according to the number of transmission or reception of the control packet and the data packet. The information on the control packet is calculated by reflecting the control packet rate according to Equation 2 above, and the information on the data packet is Data Packet Rate can be calculated and reflected according to 3.

According to Equation 2, x and y may correspond to S_PID and R_PID, respectively, in the network evaluation information table. The Control Packet Rate is a control packet transmitted between S_PID and R_PID. The control packet rate is one of the number of times R_PID transmits a control packet directly to S_PID and the number of times another peer transmits a control packet to S_PID. It can be determined by calculating the specific gravity of the number of times delivered to S_PID.

According to Equation 3, x and y may correspond to S_PID and R_PID, respectively, in the network evaluation information table. The data packet rate is a data packet transmitted between S_PID and R_PID. The data packet rate is one of the number of times R_PID transmits the data packet directly to S_PID and the number of times the other packet transmits the data packet to S_PID. It can be determined by calculating the specific gravity of the number of times delivered to S_PID.

According to Equation 4, the network packet information may be determined as a sum of CPR (Control Packet Rate) and DPR (Data Packet Rate) by adding different weights to α and β, respectively. In this case, the sum of α and β may be 1.

According to FIG. 7, the peer X receives the content from the peer Y and evaluates the peer Y. The content evaluation information is 0.5, the network evaluation information is 0.7, and the number of content sharing is one. Similarly, the peer X receives the content from the peer Z and evaluates the peer Z. The content evaluation information is 0.8, the network evaluation information is 0.9, and the number of content sharing, that is, the number of evaluations is one time. Similarly, as the information that Peer Z receives content from Peer W and evaluates Peer W, the content evaluation information is 0.9, the network evaluation information is 0.4, and the number of content sharing, that is, the evaluation number is twice. At this point, if you compare the LUT values of each evaluation, peer Z evaluates peer W rather than peer X evaluates peer Y, and peer Z evaluates peer W rather than peer Z. It is relatively more recent when X evaluates to peer Z. Of course, the higher the LUT is not limited to being evaluated relatively recently, the LUT can be viewed as meaning that the index reflects the freshness of the evaluation of the peer between peers.

In addition, the LUT is an index reflecting the freshness of the evaluation information of the peer, and may be applied to update the evaluation information of the peer to be evaluated by neighboring peers.

For example, although peer X has evaluation information data for peer Y and peer Z, the higher the LUT value for peer Y and peer Z (in one embodiment, the higher the LUT value, the more recently evaluated evaluation information. When communicating with other peers that have evaluation information, they can receive the latest evaluation information for peer Y and peer Z from other peers and update the evaluation information for peer Y and peer Z that peer X has. have.

8 illustrates a method of updating evaluation information between peers having no communication history according to an embodiment.

As described above, a peer requesting content may receive the content data from nearby peers that are directly communicating, or may receive the content data from other peers that are not directly communicating but are communicating with nearby peers. It may be sent. Thus, a peer requesting content may need an evaluation information table for other peers without a direct communication history in order to determine whether the content received from the other peers mentioned above is reliable data. That is, a peer requesting content may need evaluation information table data of other peers in order to calculate reliability of other peers having no direct communication history. FIG. 8 shows how in such a case the peer requesting the content updates information on the evaluation information table of other peers that do not have a direct communication history.

According to one embodiment of FIG. 8, peer Y 820 and peer W 810 in direct communication with peer X 800, as well as information indicating that peer Z 830 owns the content, is peer Y. FIG. Alternatively, in order to calculate a confidence value for peer Y, peer W, and peer Z received from peer W, an evaluation information table for peer Z without direct communication history may be required.

Existing Peer X has peers' evaluation information table 803 that has accumulated and transmitted and received content data with other peers in the peer-to-peer network. If Peer X has no previous direct communication with Peer Z, Evaluation information table 803 may not have evaluation information for peer Z. On the other hand, since peer Y or peer W has a history of directly communicating with peer Z, evaluation information about peer Z may be included in the evaluation information table 823 that Peer Y accumulated while sharing content with other peers. In addition, since peer W also has a history of directly communicating with peer Z, evaluation information about peer Z may be included in the evaluation information table 813 accumulated by peer W in the process of sharing content with other peers.

Peer X may receive evaluation information about peer Z from evaluation information table 823 for other peers possessed by peer Y and evaluation information table 813 for other peers possessed by peer W. .

According to FIG. 8, peer X receives evaluation information about peer Z from peer Y and peer W, respectively, and adds evaluation information about peer Z to evaluation information table 803 for other peers that peer X has ( 806).

Peer X can use the evaluation information 806 for the added peer Z to calculate the confidence for peer Z and determine which peer of peer Y, peer W and peer Z to receive content data from. .

In this case, since peer X has a direct communication history, peer X has no direct communication history, but indirect content evaluation information provided from neighboring peers communicating with peer X does not have direct communication history. By using the equations 5, 6 and 7 can be calculated by varying the weight.

According to Equation 5, when there is no direct communication history between peer x and peer z, among the content evaluation information of peer z owned by peer x, the direct content evaluation value evaluated by peers having direct communication history with peer z The average value of is called the value of the bar in DT, the average value of the content rating information is subtracted from the content rating information for each peer z, and the absolute value thereof is designated as the value PD by subtracting the value from 1 and indirectly. It can be used as a weight for calculating evaluation reliability.

According to Equation 6, the indirect trust, that is, the indirect content evaluation reliability may be calculated by applying the weight of the PD to the value of the DT, that is, the direct content evaluation reliability, using the weight of the PD as shown in Equation 6.

According to Equation 7, the final content reliability may be determined as the sum of the direct content rating reliability and the indirect content rating reliability by differently weighting α * and β *, respectively. The weighted value of α * and β * may be 1. Of course, the weights can be the same value.

In this case, if there is neither direct evaluation reliability nor indirect evaluation reliability, since the final reliability value of the peer may be smaller because of applying a weight less than 1, in this case, for example, either the direct evaluation reliability or the indirect evaluation reliability. By fixing the weight with one to about 0.8, we can reduce the error that the final confidence value is smaller than the actual confidence.

Similarly, in the case of network reliability, the final network reliability value may be calculated by reflecting the indirect evaluation network reliability and the direct evaluation network reliability with different weights from Equations 8, 9, and 10 below.

According to Equation 8, when there is no direct communication history between peer x and peer z, among the network evaluation information of peer z that peer x has, direct network evaluation value evaluated by peers having direct communication history with peer z The average value of is called the value obtained by the bars of the NDT. The average value of network evaluation information is subtracted from the network evaluation information for each peer z, and the absolute value thereof is designated as the value of NPD by subtracting the absolute value from 1. It can be used as a weight for calculating evaluation reliability.

According to Equation 9, the NIDT, that is, the indirect network evaluation reliability, may be calculated by applying the weight of the NPD to the value of the NDT, that is, the direct network evaluation reliability, as shown in Equation 9.

According to Equation 10, the network trust, that is, the final network reliability is a sum of direct network evaluation reliability (i.e., NDT) and indirect content evaluation reliability (i.e., NIDT) by adding different weights to α * and β *, respectively. You can decide. The weighted value of α * and β * may be 1. Of course, the weights can be the same value.

In this case, if there is neither direct evaluation reliability nor indirect evaluation reliability, since the final reliability value of the peer may be smaller because of applying a weight less than 1, in this case, for example, either the direct evaluation reliability or the indirect evaluation reliability. By fixing the weight with one to about 0.8, we can reduce the error that the final confidence value is smaller than the actual confidence.

According to Equation 11, the peer trust, that is, the peer trust, may be finally determined in consideration of both the network trust, that is, the network trust and the content trust, that is, the content trust. Specifically, the network reliability and the content reliability may be determined as the sum of different values of α * and β *, respectively. The weighted value of α * and β * may be 1. Of course, the weights can be the same value.

The apparatus described above may be implemented as a hardware component, a software component, and / or a combination of hardware components and software components. For example, the devices and components described in the embodiments may be, for example, processors, controllers, arithmetic logic units (ALUs), digital signal processors, microcomputers, field programmable arrays (FPAs), It may be implemented using one or more general purpose or special purpose computers, such as a programmable logic unit (PLU), microprocessor, or any other device capable of executing and responding to instructions. The processing device may execute an operating system (OS) and one or more software applications running on the operating system. The processing device may also access, store, manipulate, process, and generate data in response to the execution of the software. For convenience of explanation, one processing device may be described as being used, but one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the processing device includes a plurality of processing elements and / or a plurality of types of processing elements. It can be seen that it may include. For example, the processing device may include a plurality of processors or one processor and one controller. In addition, other processing configurations are possible, such as parallel processors.

The software may include a computer program, code, instructions, or a combination of one or more of the above, and configure the processing device to operate as desired, or process it independently or collectively. You can command the device. Software and / or data may be any type of machine, component, physical device, virtual equipment, computer storage medium or device in order to be interpreted by or to provide instructions or data to the processing device. Or may be permanently or temporarily embodied in a signal wave to be transmitted. The software may be distributed over networked computer systems so that they may be stored or executed in a distributed manner. Software and data may be stored on one or more computer readable recording media.

The method according to the embodiment may be embodied in the form of program instructions that can be executed by various computer means and recorded in a computer readable medium. The computer readable medium may include program instructions, data files, data structures, etc. alone or in combination. The program instructions recorded on the media may be those specially designed and constructed for the purposes of the embodiments, or they may be of the kind well-known and available to those having skill in the computer software arts. Examples of computer-readable recording media include magnetic media such as hard disks, floppy disks, and magnetic tape, optical media such as CD-ROMs, DVDs, and magnetic disks, such as floppy disks. Magneto-optical media, and hardware devices specifically configured to store and execute program instructions, such as ROM, RAM, flash memory, and the like. Examples of program instructions include not only machine code generated by a compiler, but also high-level language code that can be executed by a computer using an interpreter or the like. The hardware device described above may be configured to operate as one or more software modules to perform the operations of the embodiments, and vice versa.

Although the embodiments have been described with reference to the accompanying drawings, those skilled in the art can make various modifications and variations from the above description. For example, the described techniques may be performed in a different order than the described method, and / or components of the described systems, structures, devices, circuits, etc. may be combined or combined in a different form than the described method, or other components. Or even if replaced or substituted by equivalents, an appropriate result can be achieved.

Therefore, other implementations, other embodiments, and equivalents to the claims are within the scope of the claims that follow.

Claims (11)

A peer reliability calculation method, wherein an evaluation peer calculates a reliability of a first peer sharing content in a peer-to-peer network,
Calculating a content-confidence value for the content of the content provided by the first peer by using the content evaluation information previously evaluated by a score as to whether the content of the content owned by the peer is reliable data; ;
Calculating a network-reliability value for the network state of the first peer using the previously evaluated network evaluation information;
Calculating a peer-confidence value of the first peer from the content-confidence and the network-confidence value;
Generating, by the evaluating peer, first evaluation data including first evaluation information evaluating the first peer and a value evaluating the evaluation peer, the first peer, and the content of the content;
Comparing the viewpoint information of the other evaluation data with the viewpoint information of the first evaluation data when communicating with neighboring peers having other evaluation data evaluating the first peer;
Based on the comparison result, determining whether to update the other evaluation data possessed by the neighboring peers with the first evaluation data;
Updating the other evaluation data with the first evaluation data when the viewpoint information of the first evaluation data appears more recently than the viewpoint information of the other evaluation data; And
If the viewpoint information of the first evaluation data appears in the past than the viewpoint information of the other evaluation data, maintaining the other evaluation data.
How to include. The method of claim 1,
Computing the content-reliability value,
A content evaluation including the content evaluation information as the item, the first peer, a second peer provided with the content from the first peer, a score that the second peer rated on the content, and evaluation point information How to extract from information table. The method of claim 1,
Computing the network-reliability value,
And extracting the network evaluation information from a network packet information table including at least one of the first peer, a second peer for monitoring a network state of the first peer, and network packet transmission and reception count information. The method of claim 3,
The network packet transmission and reception count information includes a number of times that the first peer transmits a control packet and a data packet directly to the second peer; And
And a number of times the first peer has delivered a control packet and a data packet received from a third peer to the second peer. The method of claim 1,
Computing the content-reliability value,
When a second peer requests a peer-reliability value of the first peer, a direct evaluation value evaluated by the second peer in communication with the first peer and a third peer in communication with the first peer. Calculating the content-confidence value using the evaluated indirect evaluation value. The method of claim 5,
Computing the content-reliability value,
Calculating the content-confidence value by varying weights of the direct evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value. The method of claim 1,
Computing the network-reliability value,
When a second peer requests a peer-reliability value of the first peer, a direct evaluation value evaluated by the second peer in communication with the first peer and a third peer in communication with the first peer. Calculating the network-reliability value using the evaluated indirect evaluation value. The method of claim 7, wherein
Computing the network-reliability value,
Calculating a network-reliability value by varying weights of the direct evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value. The method of claim 1,
Computing the peer-reliability value,
Calculating the peer-confidence value by varying the weight of the content-confidence and the network-confidence value. A method of updating evaluation data used to calculate peer-reliability of a target peer sharing content in a peer-to-peer network,
The evaluation data is composed of evaluation information including an evaluator, the target peer, and a value for evaluating the content of the content, and viewpoint information for distinguishing the preceding and following evaluation points.
As evaluation data for the same target peer, when any one of the evaluator and the evaluation information is different between the existing evaluation data and the new evaluation data to be updated, the evaluation data is used by using the viewpoint information. Decide whether to update,
If the viewpoint information of the new evaluation data is more recent than the viewpoint information of the previous evaluation data, update the previous evaluation data with the new evaluation data,
And when the viewpoint information of the new evaluation data is in the past than the viewpoint information of the previous evaluation data. delete

Images