Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

G-TOPSIS: a cloud service selection framework using Gaussian TOPSIS for rank reversal problem

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The dynamic resource requirement of applications has forced a large number of business organizations to join the cloud market and provide cloud services. It has posed a challenge for cloud users to select the best service providers and to minimize losses occurring due to its improper selection. This paper aims to propose a robust rank reversal technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method based on Gaussian distribution and used to develop a cloud service selection framework. The proposed framework ranks cloud services based on the quality of services provided by cloud service providers and cloud user’s priority. A case study is performed on a real dataset obtained from CloudHarmony to show the effectiveness and correctness of the proposed framework. The results obtained demonstrate that the proposed framework ranks cloud services similar to TOPSIS-based frameworks. A sensitivity analysis has also been performed to check its robustness in six different cases causing rank reversal and found that the proposed framework is robust to handle rank reversal phenomenon in all the scenarios in comparison with other studies available in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buyya R, Yeo CS, Venugopal S, Broberg J, Brandic I (2009) Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Gener Comput Syst 25(6):599–616

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ardagna D, Casale G, Ciavotta M, Pérez JF, Wang W (2014) Quality-of-service in cloud computing: modeling techniques and their applications. J Internet Serv Appl 5(1):11

    Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel J, Perdue J (2012) Cloud services measures for global use: the service measurement index (SMI). In: 2012 Annual SRII Global Conference. IEEE, pp 411–415

  4. Madias EN, Doulos LT, Kontaxis PA, Topalis FV (2019) A decision support system for techno-economic evaluation of indoor lighting systems with LED luminaires. Oper Res Int J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-019-00485-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ostovari Y, Honarbakhsh A, Sangoony H, Zolfaghari F, Maleki K, Ingram B (2019) GIS and multi-criteria decision-making analysis assessment of land suitability for rapeseed farming in calcareous soils of semi-arid regions. Ecol Ind 103:479–487

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wang YM, Luo Y (2009) On rank reversal in decision analysis. Math Comput Model 49(5–6):1221–1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.06.019

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. García Cascales MS, Lamata MT (2012) On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Math Comput Model 56(5–6):123–132

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Kumar RR, Mishra S, Kumar C (2018) A novel framework for cloud service evaluation and selection using hybrid MCDM methods. Arabian J Sci Eng 43(12):7015–7030

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rădulescu CZ, Rădulescu IC (2017) An extended TOPSIS approach for ranking cloud service providers. Stud Inf Control 26:183–192

    Google Scholar 

  10. Qu L (2016) Credible service selection in cloud environments. Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University

  11. Sun L, Dong H, Hussain FK, Hussain OK, Chang E (2014) Cloud service selection: state-of-the-art and future research directions. J Netw Comput Appl 45:134–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2014.07.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Whaiduzzaman M, Gani A, Anuar NB, Shiraz M, Haque MN, Haque IT (2014) Cloud service selection using multicriteria decision analysis. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/459375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kananizadeh S, Kononenko K (2017) Predictive Mitigation of Timing Channels - Threat Defense for Machine Codes. J Grid Comput 15(3):395–414

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chang CW, Liu P, Wu JJ (2012) Probability-based cloud storage providers selection algorithms with maximum availability. In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Parallel Processing. IEEE, pp 199–208

  15. Ye Z, Bouguettaya A, Zhou X (2012) QoS-aware cloud service composition based on economic models. In: International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, vol 12. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–126

  16. He Q, Han J, Yang Y, Grundy J, Jin H (2012) QoS-driven service selection for multi-tenant SaaS. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Cloud Computing, vol 24. IEEE, pp 566–573

  17. Sundareswaran S, Squicciarini A, Lin D (2012) A brokerage-based approach for cloud service selection. In: 2012 IEEE fifth International Conference on Cloud Computing, vol 24. IEEE, pp 558–565

  18. Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R (2013) A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(4):1012–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2012.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Baranwal G, Vidyarthi DP (2016) A cloud service selection model using improved ranked voting method. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 28(13):3540–3567

    Google Scholar 

  20. Basu A, Ghosh S (2018) Implementing fuzzy TOPSIS in cloud type and service provider selection. Adv Fuzzy Syst 2018:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2503895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jatoth C, Gangadharan GR, Fiore U, Buyya R (2019) SELCLOUD: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for selection of cloud services. Soft Comput 23(13):4701–4715

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zheng Z, Wu X, Zhang Y, Lyu MR, Wang J (2013) QoS ranking prediction for cloud services. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 24(6):1213–1222

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chen C, Yan S, Zhao G, Lee BS, Singhal S (2012) A systematic framework enabling automatic conflict detection and explanation in cloud service selection for enterprises. In: Proceedings of fifth IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 883–890

  24. Dastjerdi AV, Tabatabaei SGH, Buyya R (2010) An effective architecture for automated appliance management system applying ontology-based cloud discovery. In: Proceedings of 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, pp 104–112

  25. Jung G, Mukherjee T, Kunde S, Kim H, Sharma N, Goetz F (2013) Cloudadvisor: a recommendation-as-a-service platform for cloud configuration and pricing. In: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE Ninth World Congress on Services, vol 28. IEEE, pp 456–463

  26. Ghosh N, Ghosh SK, Das SK (2015) SelCSP: a framework to facilitate selection of cloud service providers. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 3(1):66–79

    Google Scholar 

  27. Marudhadevi D, Dhatchayani VN, Sriram VS (2014) A trust evaluation model for cloud computing using service level agreement. Comput J 58(10):2225–2232

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ding S, Yang S, Zhang Y, Liang C, Xia C (2014) Combining QoS prediction and customer satisfaction estimation to solve cloud service trustworthiness evaluation problems. Knowl-Based Syst 56:216–225

    Google Scholar 

  29. Qu C, Buyya R (2014) A cloud trust evaluation system using hierarchical fuzzy inference system for service selection. In: 2014 IEEE 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, vol 13. IEEE, pp 850–857

  30. Sidhu J, Singh S (2017) Improved TOPSIS method based trust evaluation framework for determining trustworthiness of cloud service providers. J Grid Comput 15(1):81–105

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kumar RR, Mishra S, Kumar C (2017) Prioritizing the solution of cloud service selection using integrated MCDM methods under Fuzzy environment. J Supercomput 73(11):4652–4682

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lee S, Seo KK (2016) A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for a cloud service selection problem using BSC, fuzzy Delphi method and fuzzy AHP. Wirel Pers Commun 86(1):57–75

    Google Scholar 

  33. Liu S, Chan FT, Ran W (2016) Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: an improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes. Expert Syst Appl 55:37–47

    Google Scholar 

  34. Al-Faifi A, Song B, Hassan MM, Alamri A, Gumaei A (2019) A hybrid multi criteria decision method for cloud service selection from Smart data. Future Gener Comput Syst 93:43–57

    Google Scholar 

  35. Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M, Chang V (2018) NMCDA: a framework for evaluating cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst 86:12–29

    Google Scholar 

  36. Tripathi A, Pathak I, Vidyarthi DP (2017) Integration of analytic network process with service measurement index framework for cloud service provider selection. Concurrency Comput: Pract Experience 29(12):e4144

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dyer JS (2005) MAUT—multiattribute utility theory. In: JosÉ F, Salvatore G, Matthias E (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 265–292

  38. Fülöp J (2005) Introduction to decision making methods. Laboratory of Operations Research and Decision Systems Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

  39. Afshari A, Mojahed M, Yusuff RM (2010) Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem. Int J Innov Manag Technol 5(1):511–515

    Google Scholar 

  40. CloudHarmony. https://cloudharmony.com/. Accessed 25 May 2019

  41. Belton V, Gear T (1985) The legitimacy of rank reversal—a comment. Omega 13(3):143–144

    Google Scholar 

  42. Saaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9(3–5):161–176

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Aires RFDF, Ferreira L (2018) The rank reversal problem in multi-criteria decision making: a literature review. Pesqui Oper 38(2):331–362

    Google Scholar 

  44. Zanakis SH, Solomon A, Wishart N, Dublish S (1998) Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of select methods. Eur J Oper Res 170(3):507–529

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Verly C, De Smet Y (2013) Some results about rank reversal instances in the PROMETHEE methods. Int J Multicriteria Decis Mak 3(4):325–345

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Ind 46:138–148

    Google Scholar 

  47. Triantaphyllou E (2001) Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 10(1):11–25

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Wang X, Triantaphyllou E (2008) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36(1):45–63

    Google Scholar 

  49. Finan JS, Hurley WJ (2002) The analytic hierarchy process: can wash criteria be ignored? Comput Oper Res 29(8):1025–1030

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Lin JS, Chou SY, Chouhuang WT, Hsu CP (2008) Note on “Wash criterion in analytic hierarchy process”. Eur J Oper Res 185(1):444–447

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Sung-Te Jung YU, Li SP, Julian P (2009) A revisit to wash criteria in analytic hierarchy process. Far East J Math Sci (FJMS) 34(1):313–316

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Ren L, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Sun Z (2007) Comparative analysis of a novel M-TOPSIS method and TOPSIS. Appl Math Res Express 2007:10. Article ID abm005

  53. Kong F (2011) Rank reversal and rank preservation in TOPSIS. Adv Mater Res 204:36–41

    Google Scholar 

  54. Senouci MA, Mushtaq MS, Hoceini S, Mellouk A (2016) TOPSIS-based dynamic approach for mobile network interface selection. Comput Netw 107:304–314

    Google Scholar 

  55. de Farias Aires RF, Ferreira L (2019) A new approach to avoid rank reversal cases in the TOPSIS method. Comput Ind Eng 132:84–97

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lei FW (2020) TOPSIS method for developing supplier selection with probabilistic linguistic information. Int J Fuzzy Syst 2020:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  57. Memari A, Dargi A, Jokar MRA, Ahmad R, Rahim ARA (2019) Sustainable supplier selection: a multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. J Manuf Syst 50:9–24

    Google Scholar 

  58. Yucesan M, Gul M (2019) Hospital service quality evaluation: an integrated model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Soft Comput 24:1–19

  59. Abdel-Basset M, Manogaran G, Gamal A, Smarandache F (2019) A group decision making framework based on neutrosophic TOPSIS approach for smart medical device selection. J Med Syst 43(2):38

    Google Scholar 

  60. Noureddine M, Ristic M (2019) Route planning for hazardous materials transportation: multicriteria decision making approach. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 2:66–85

    Google Scholar 

  61. Fowley F, Pahl C, Jamshidi P, Fang D, Liu X (2016) A classification and comparison framework for cloud service brokerage architectures. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 6(2):358–371

    Google Scholar 

  62. CloudSpectator. https://cloudspectator.com. Accessed 25 May 2019

  63. Jatoth C, Gangadharan GR, Fiore U (2017) Evaluating the efficiency of cloud services using modified data envelopment analysis and modified super-efficiency data envelopment analysis. Soft Comput 21(23):7221–7234

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is financially supported by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India under Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme phase three (TEQIP-III). I am thankful to TEQIP-III for providing all support during this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Madan Mohan Malaviya University of Technology-Gorakhpur, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, 273010, India

    Rohit Kumar Tiwari & Rakesh Kumar

Authors
  1. Rohit Kumar Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rakesh Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rohit Kumar Tiwari.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tiwari, R.K., Kumar, R. G-TOPSIS: a cloud service selection framework using Gaussian TOPSIS for rank reversal problem. J Supercomput 77, 523–562 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03284-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03284-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation