Trust modeling for message relay control and local action decision making in VANETs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this paper, we present a trust‐modeling framework for message propagation and evaluation in vehicular ad hoc networks. In the framework, peers share information regarding road condition or safety, and others provide opinions about whether the information can be trusted. More specifically, our trust‐based message propagation model collects and propagates peers' opinions in an efficient, secure, and scalable way by dynamically controlling information dissemination. The trust‐based message evaluation model allows peers to derive a local action decision about whether to follow the information by evaluating the information in a distributed and collaborative fashion while taking into account others' opinions. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed trust‐modeling framework promotes network scalability and system effectiveness, which are the two essentially important factors for the popularization of vehicular ad hoc networks, in information propagation and evaluation under the pervasive presence of false information. In particular, we clarify how our relay control serves to decrease the number of inappropriate actions taken on the basis of malicious information and enables honest peers to produce a greater number of deliveries within the network. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it