Abstract

Owing to the characteristics of underwater communication, such as limited bandwidth, low transmission speed, and long delivery delay, it is significantly challenging to address trust management in the Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT). In the process of trust calculation, trust judgments between nodes may be conflicting based on the obtained diverse trust evidences. However, in existing studies, the analysis of trust-conflict adjudication is nonexhaustive and lacking in detail. Therefore, a controversy-adjudication method is proposed in this study to handle conflict recommendations, and a novel trust management mechanism is further investigated based on the controversy-adjudication method, including three phases: 1) trust calculation; 2) trust recommendation; and 3) trust evaluation. First, trust evidences, e.g., packet delivery ratio, end-to-end packet transmission latency, and residual energy, are collected to calculate trust for trustees. In addition, for the trustor without sufficient trust evidences, recommendations are required and an incentive mechanism is proposed based on the prisoner’s dilemma to encourage neighbors to participate in trust recommendation. Finally, trust values of trustees are obtained by executing trust evaluation based on the controversy-adjudication mechanism. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed trust management mechanism outperforms existing related works in terms of accuracy and robustness against unreliable IoUT.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.