Architecture and implementation of a trust model for pervasive applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative effort to share resources is a significant feature of pervasive computing environments. To achieve secure service discovery and sharing, and to distinguish between malevolent and benevolent entities, trust models must be defined. It is critical to estimate a device's initial trust value because of the transient nature of pervasive smart space; however, most of the prior research work on trust models for pervasive applications used the notion of constant initial trust assignment. In this paper, we design and implement a trust model called DIRT. We categorize services in different security levels and depending on the service requester's context information, we calculate the initial trust value. Our trust value is assigned for each device and for each service. Our overall trust estimation for a service depends on the recommendations of the neighbouring devices, inference from other service-trust values for that device, and direct trust experience. We provide an extensive survey of related work, and we demonstrate the distinguishing features of our proposed model with respect to the existing models. We implement a healthcare-monitoring application and a location-based service prototype over DIRT. We also provide a performance analysis of the model with respect to some of its important characteristics tested in various scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".