Location privacy preservation in collaborative spectrum sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative spectrum sensing has been regarded as a promising approach to enable secondary users to detect primary users by exploiting spatial diversity. In this paper, we consider a converse question: could space diversity be exploited by a malicious entity, e.g., an external attacker or an untrusted Fusion Center (FC), to achieve involuntary geolocation of a secondary user by linking his location-dependent sensing report to his physical position. We answer this question by identifying a new security threat in collaborative sensing from testbed implementation, and it is shown that the attackers could geo-locate a secondary user from its sensing report with a successful rate of above 90% even in the presence of data aggregation. We then introduce a novel location privacy definition to quantify the location privacy leaking in collaborative sensing. We propose a Privacy Preserving collaborative Spectrum Sensing (PPSS) scheme, which includes two primitive protocols: Privacy Preserving Sensing Report Aggregation protocol (PPSRA) and Distributed Dummy Report Injection Protocol (DDRI). Specifically, PPSRA scheme utilizes applied cryptographic techniques to allow the FC to obtain the aggregated result from various secondary users without learning each individual's values while DDRI algorithm can provide differential location privacy for secondary users by introducing a novel sensing data randomization technique. We implement and evaluate the PPSS scheme in a real-world testbed. The evaluation results show that PPSS can significantly improve the secondary user's location privacy with a reasonable security overhead in collaborative sensing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".